Q&A With A Seventy Tonite

[Duncan]

Its our Stake Conference this weekend and a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy is here and he had a Q&A session.I don't want to say who it is because you are probably related to him or something! haha. First off, know one knew this was coming, so I personally was caught off guard. Most of the questions were the questions that you could find in the Ensign like "How can we prepare for the Temple", "get our Youth to go" type of questions. A Missionary asked if Jesus was ever an Aaronic Priesthood holder and he said yes. Some sly guy asked what picture of Jesus looks like the real Jesus (trick question) and he was answered, "I don't endorse paintings and neither does Pres. Monson" I can see that, because every Mormon would go out and buy that painting. The question that left me troubled was the I got the nerve to ask and that was, "Why are we getting a Temple and members in the world who have longer drives to make and incur more cost are not?" his response was "God expects more from Saints who live near a Temple" I get that part but is the implied message God expects nothing from people who don't live near a Temple? Like should I think yeah too bad, Scotland, Ireland, the district in Ethiopia whose Temple district in South Africa? So what does he expect from Saints who don't live near a Temple? I am open to new ideas on this

[Rob Bowman]

Duncan,

I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict this view explicitly:

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" (Heb. 7:11 KJV).

Its our Stake Conference this weekend and a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy is here and he had a Q&A session.I don't want to say who it is because you are probably related to him or something! haha. First off, know one knew this was coming, so I personally was caught off guard. Most of the questions were the questions that you could find in the Ensign like "How can we prepare for the Temple", "get our Youth to go" type of questions. A Missionary asked if Jesus was ever an Aaronic Priesthood holder and he said yes. Some sly guy asked what picture of Jesus looks like the real Jesus (trick question) and he was answered, "I don't endorse paintings and neither does Pres. Monson" I can see that, because every Mormon would go out and buy that painting. The question that left me troubled was the I got the nerve to ask and that was, "Why are we getting a Temple and members in the world who have longer drives to make and incur more cost are not?" his response was "God expects more from Saints who live near a Temple" I get that part but is the implied message God expects nothing from people who don't live near a Temple? Like should I think yeah too bad, Scotland, Ireland, the district in Ethiopia whose Temple district in South Africa? So what does he expect from Saints who don't live near a Temple? I am open to new ideas on this

[Cherubbish]

Its our Stake Conference this weekend and a member of the 1st Quorum of the Seventy is here and he had a Q&A session.I don't want to say who it is because you are probably related to him or something! haha. First off, know one knew this was coming, so I personally was caught off guard. Most of the questions were the questions that you could find in the Ensign like "How can we prepare for the Temple", "get our Youth to go" type of questions. A Missionary asked if Jesus was ever an Aaronic Priesthood holder and he said yes. Some sly guy asked what picture of Jesus looks like the real Jesus (trick question) and he was answered, "I don't endorse paintings and neither does Pres. Monson" I can see that, because every Mormon would go out and buy that painting. The question that left me troubled was the I got the nerve to ask and that was, "Why are we getting a Temple and members in the world who have longer drives to make and incur more cost are not?" his response was "God expects more from Saints who live near a Temple" I get that part but is the implied message God expects nothing from people who don't live near a Temple? Like should I think yeah too bad, Scotland, Ireland, the district in Ethiopia whose Temple district in South Africa? So what does he expect from Saints who don't live near a Temple? I am open to new ideas on this

Maybe what he meant was that it's because those people are not prepared to have a temple. Even if it's the temporal upkeep of the temple. It's a lot of responsibility to have a temple nearby. So it literally requires more for the Saints to staff, clean, attend, etc. I don't think his answer implies that the active Saints in areas where there is not a temple are not worthy or any less spiritually ready to have a temple. It's just that there probably is not enough of them.

What the Lord expects, is what Pres. Hunter emphasized, that all should work towards and live worthy to hold a temple recommend, regardless if they are able to attend or not.

[Duncan]

Thank you! I don't know what our Stake, who has the lowest retention of new converts in the area, that the 16 or 17 stakes in Virgina, to name one place, isn't doing. Our attendance tonite at the conference barely filled the chapel-that is one stake, yes we are the largest geographical stake in the world I would bet but small in number. I am baffled and befuddled by the whole of it!

[mfbukowski]

Duncan,

I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict this view explicitly:

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" (Heb. 7:11 KJV).

So God himself does not hold his own priesthood(s)?

[Stargazer]

Duncan,

I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood. The book of Hebrews seems to contradict this view explicitly:

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?" (Heb. 7:11 KJV).

A holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood automatically holds the Aaronic Priesthood (from the Gospel Principles manual: "The lesser priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood."). Some might quibble and say that new adult male converts are routinely given the Aaronic Priesthood before they get the Melchizedek, but this is done primarily as a teaching step, and also because the level of condemnation for an AP holder who fully apostatizes is less than that for a MP holder. This last bit is my opinion as to part of the reason for starting with the AP, but it grows from the D&C 84: 39-42, wherein it says:

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the

priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and

covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether

turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the

world to come.

Not saying that a new convert is more likely to apostatize, but it seems easier to do. The church requires (under normal circumstances) a year as a member before receiving the Endowment, and this is for a similar reason, namely, to ensure the new convert has demonstrated sufficient Gospel maturity and has been prepared through service and knowledge.

It may well be that current church policy requires ordination to Priest before a man may receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, but as far as I have been able to discover, there is no doctrinal reason why it must be so. I am open to correction on this, of course, if someone knows better and if they can give me a reference it would be even better.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski and Stargazer,

I did not see anything in your posts that addresses Hebrews 7:11. How, if at all, do you reconcile that verse with the idea that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron?

[bookofmormontruth]

Mr. Bukowski and Stargazer,

I did not see anything in your posts that addresses Hebrews 7:11. How, if at all, do you reconcile that verse with the idea that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron?

Why limit oneself from one verse from the Bible?

You can reconcile it with the Book of Mormon and from the teachings that came from a Prophet like Joseph Smith.

[Stargazer]

Mr. Bukowski and Stargazer,

I did not see anything in your posts that addresses Hebrews 7:11. How, if at all, do you reconcile that verse with the idea that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron?

11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it

the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest

should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of

Aaron?

Don't see anything to address, really. Paul argues here that perfection does not come through the Levitical priesthood, despite the Law coming through it. The implication being is that perfection (or completeness) comes through the Melchizedek Priesthood, with Jesus at its head. But what of it?

I suggest to you that it would be a pretty odd state of affairs if Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament, did not Himself hold the priesthood that he granted unto the Levites, and unto those of the order of Aaron. I don't think even Deity can get away with conferring something upon another that He does not possess in Himself in the first place. I mean, he created it! How could he create it and not own it! Seems pretty inescapable to me.

Your mileage may differ, of course, meaning you may disagree, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

[Duncan]

Don't see anything to address, really. Paul argues here that perfection does not come through the Levitical priesthood, despite the Law coming through it. The implication being is that perfection (or completeness) comes through the Melchizedek Priesthood, with Jesus at its head. But what of it?

I suggest to you that it would be a pretty odd state of affairs if Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament, did not Himself hold the priesthood that he granted unto the Levites, and unto those of the order of Aaron. I don't think even Deity can get away with conferring something upon another that He does not possess in Himself in the first place. I mean, he created it! How could he create it and not own it! Seems pretty inescapable to me.

Your mileage may differ, of course, meaning you may disagree, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

my thoughts exactley

[Monster]

What he meant was we need more temples located where the bulk of the tithing comes from.

[Calm]

What he meant was we need more temples located where the bulk of the tithing comes from.

Except this would contradict what Duncan has described about the state of the stake:

I don't know what our Stake, who has the lowest retention of new converts in the area, that the 16 or 17 stakes in Virgina, to name one place, isn't doing. Our attendance tonite at the conference barely filled the chapel-that is one stake, yes we are the largest geographical stake in the world I would bet but small in number. I am baffled and befuddled by the whole of it!

[Traela]

The question that left me troubled was the I got the nerve to ask and that was, "Why are we getting a Temple and members in the world who have longer drives to make and incur more cost are not?" his response was "God expects more from Saints who live near a Temple" I get that part but is the implied message God expects nothing from people who don't live near a Temple? Like should I think yeah too bad, Scotland, Ireland, the district in Ethiopia whose Temple district in South Africa? So what does he expect from Saints who don't live near a Temple? I am open to new ideas on this

First, if someone doesn't live near a temple, they will probably attend only once a year, or even only once in a lifetime if the journey is long and problematic enough. And that (IMO, having lived in a once-a-year area) is fine with the Lord. Members who live close to a temple have more of an expectation to attend several times per year, or more. Remember that in Conference someone said that the sacrifice expected of Saints who live close to a temple is to make the time to attend the temple. Teens and unendowed adults who live close to a temple are now also being encouraged to perform baptisms in addition to the ward-organized trips.

Also keep in mind that part of what determines where a new temple will be built is simple logistics. When a temple is running sessions through the night, leaders start looking at how ease the congestion. But if you look at a world map, you'll see that the concentration of temples is increasing everywhere. Yes, some areas that have temples are getting more, but districts that used to be once-in-a-lifetime trips are being decreased in area to once-a-year, and once-a-year areas are becoming frequent-trip areas.

[Ariarates]

"Why are we getting a Temple and members in the world who have longer drives to make and incur more cost are not?"

There is a direct, statistically significant correlation between the number of temples, the number of members and the average household income in any given country. Regression analysis shows that membership and income are causal to the number of temples. I started a thread about that a while ago but got skinned alive. Good luck.

[LDSToronto]

Duncan,

I am just as confused as you are. I know where you live, and your area doesn't even have the density of population to support a temple. A very strange choice, in my opinion.

On another note, did your GA talk a lot about tithing? We had a 2 GA's at our stake conference today, and both went on and on about tithing. I can imagine with a new temple in your area, it was front and centre.

H.

[Duncan]

Duncan,

I am just as confused as you are. I know where you live, and your area doesn't even have the density of population to support a temple. A very strange choice, in my opinion.

On another note, did your GA talk a lot about tithing? We had a 2 GA's at our stake conference today, and both went on and on about tithing. I can imagine with a new temple in your area, it was front and centre.

H.

I know! he mentioned tithing and how some friend of his was so poor he said he couldn't pay his tithing and the visitor said to him, "you should pay a little bit of nothing" something like that like you get paid nothing so 10 percent of nothing is microminiscule so pay it, type of thing, it wasn't the main focus, actually our stake president talked about himself for the twenty minutes but whatever, he seems to think he singlehandedly is doing everything and taking all the credit, but again "they have their reward". I hope the membership here grows but not like the growth where the Flames play...we don't want that to happen again and all the stuff that goes along with it.

[cinepro]

A holder of the Melchizedek Priesthood automatically holds the Aaronic Priesthood (from the Gospel Principles manual: "The lesser priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood.").

I was assuming anyone who would ask such a question, and a Seventy that would answer it, would be looking at it as Jesus being ordained to the Aaronic before getting the Melchizedek, so there would be a point in his life where he held only the Aaronic.

The point that the Melchizedek encompasses the Aaronic Priesthood is pretty basic, and if there were any confusion, I would have expected the Seventy to simply say "Since the Melchizedek includes the Aaronic Priesthood, yes, Jesus held the Aaronic."

[Kenngo1969]

I hope you don't think I am treating your question, his response, and your being troubled by the latter lightly, because I'm not. That said, think about it in terms of simple logic:

"If (A), then (B)" does not translate to "If (B), then (A)," or "If Not (A), then Not (B)." God expects the same in terms of temple worthiness from everyone, whatever his or her proximity to a temple. On the other hand, He cannot and does not expect the same in temple attendance from everyone, even though the standard for worthiness is the same. (As His Servant, President Howard W. Hunter once said, it would please Him if every member of the Church of Jesus Christ would be worthy of, and carry, a temple recommend.) If you believe that all flesh is in God's hands, and if you believe that He's really in charge of where temples are constructed and when, you really needn't be troubled about the Seventy's response.

[Rob Bowman]

BOMT,

You asked:

Why limit oneself from one verse from the Bible?

Who's doing that? I'm not. But Hebrews 7:11 is part of the Bible. It explicitly denies that Jesus was called to be a priest of the order of Aaron. What do you do with that? Apparently, you ignore it.

You wrote:

You can reconcile it with the Book of Mormon and from the teachings that came from a Prophet like Joseph Smith.

By "reconcile" you appear to mean "override."

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

Your comments don't deal with the fact that Hebrews 7:11 explicitly says that Christ was not called to be a priest of the order of Aaron.

Your argument that God cannot confer something he doesn't possess is a theological rationale, not something God has revealed. It assumes that priesthood is something that God "confers" in the sense of passing on to someone else. But the Bible never says that God conferred priesthood on Aaron or anyone else. What Hebrews says is that God called and appointed men to be priests. He can do that without himself being a priest.

Priesthood in the Bible is not a power. It is an office instituted by God to mediate between God and people. It is not something God possesses and then shares with or passes on to people.

Don't see anything to address, really. Paul argues here that perfection does not come through the Levitical priesthood, despite the Law coming through it. The implication being is that perfection (or completeness) comes through the Melchizedek Priesthood, with Jesus at its head. But what of it?

I suggest to you that it would be a pretty odd state of affairs if Jesus, being the God of the Old Testament, did not Himself hold the priesthood that he granted unto the Levites, and unto those of the order of Aaron. I don't think even Deity can get away with conferring something upon another that He does not possess in Himself in the first place. I mean, he created it! How could he create it and not own it! Seems pretty inescapable to me.

Your mileage may differ, of course, meaning you may disagree, but I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

[mfbukowski]

Your comments don't deal with the fact that Hebrews 7:11 explicitly says that Christ was not called to be a priest of the order of Aaron.

I can't allow this to stand. I have been waiting for someone to stand up to you and no one will, so again I must do it.

It absolutely says nothing of the kind.

Pick any translation you like:

Hebrews 7:11

New International Version (©1984)

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

New Living Translation (©2007)

So if the priesthood of Levi, on which the law was based, could have achieved the perfection God intended, why did God need to establish a different priesthood, with a priest in the order of Melchizedek instead of the order of Levi and Aaron?

English Standard Version (©2001)

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

International Standard Version (©2008)

Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood-for on this basis the people received the law-what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron?

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

The people established the Levitical priesthood based on instructions they received. If the work of the Levitical priests had been perfect, we wouldn't need to speak about another kind of priest. However, we speak about another kind of priest, a priest like Melchizedek, not a Levitical priest like Aaron.

King James Bible

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

American King James Version

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

American Standard Version

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

Bible in Basic English

Now if it was possible for things to be made complete through the priests of the house of Levi (for the law was given to the people in connection with them), what need was there for another priest who was of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

Douay-Rheims Bible

If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Darby Bible Translation

If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with it, what need was there still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?

English Revised Version

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

Webster's Bible Translation

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Weymouth New Testament

Now if the crowning blessing was attainable by means of the Levitical priesthood--for as resting on this foundation the people received the Law, to which they are still subject-- what further need was there for a Priest of a different kind to be raised up belonging to the order of Melchizedek instead of being said to belong to the order of Aaron?

World English Bible

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Young's Literal Translation

If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

All it says is what LDS doctrine states, that there was need for another priesthood because perfection was not possible through the Aaronic Priesthood.

It is totally clear.

Totally.

[ERMD]

One of the 12 came to our stake conference back in the late '90s. During the priesthood leadership session, he opened the floor to questions. I asked why the presentation of the endowment had been changed. His response was basically, "It needed to be changed."

That's certainly correct, but I was hoping for a little more detail!

[Duncan]

One of the 12 came to our stake conference back in the late '90s. During the priesthood leadership session, he opened the floor to questions. I asked why the presentation of the endowment had been changed. His response was basically, "It needed to be changed."

That's certainly correct, but I was hoping for a little more detail!

Good for you for asking! I don't have that kind of courage! he kind of lead the discussion, so his answers were long winded kind of and some people were asking questions that you can get the answers in the Ensign-like this is your big opportunity to ask something good!

[David T]

I am interested in the man's affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood.

I'm not. I think it was a silly question, and an even sillier answer, and shouldn't be defended.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

I can't allow this to stand. I have been waiting for someone to stand up to you and no one will, so again I must do it.

Good for you.

You wrote:

It absolutely says nothing of the kind.

We shall see.

Pick any translation you like:

Okay, I will:

New International Version (©1984)

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

English Standard Version (©2001)

Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron?

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

King James Bible

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

American King James Version

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

American Standard Version

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

Bible in Basic English

Now if it was possible for things to be made complete through the priests of the house of Levi (for the law was given to the people in connection with them), what need was there for another priest who was of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

Douay-Rheims Bible

If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Darby Bible Translation

If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with it, what need was there still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?

English Revised Version

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

Webster's Bible Translation

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

World English Bible

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

I agree with these too:

Holman Christian Standard Bible

If then, perfection came through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to appear, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

New English Translation (NET) Bible

So if perfection had in fact been possible through the Levitical priesthood – for on that basis16 the people received the law – what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, said to be in the order of Melchizedek and not in Aaron's order?

New Revised Standard Version

Now if perfection had been attainable through the levitical priesthood -- for the people received the law under this priesthood -- what further need would there have been to speak of another priest arising according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than one according to the order of Aaron?

I even agree with this one here:

Joseph Smith Translation

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

You wrote:

All it says is what LDS doctrine states, that there was need for another priesthood because perfection was not possible through the Aaronic Priesthood. It is totally clear. Totally.

If you had just said "totally" one more time, you might have convinced me. But in fact the text very plainly says that there was a need, not for another priesthood order to which men might be ordained, but for "another priest" of a different order who would "not be called after the order of Aaron."

The Greek text is equally plain. The key words here are ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, heteron anistasthai hierea, "cause to arise a different priest," and οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν, ou kata ten taxin Aaron, "not according to the order of Aaron."

Reading on in Hebrews 7, the context makes it abundantly clear that one and only one person holds this office of priest according to the order of Melchizedek:

"For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, ''You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: 'The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever."' This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever" (Heb 7:12-24 ESV, emphasis added).

Throughout this passage, Jesus is the one person who functions as "a priest" according to the order of Melchizedek (which the text explains means that he is a priest "in the likeness of Melchizedek"). It is "his" priesthood alone; he is "the one," "this one," who is that "priest." His sole possession of this office is contrasted with the many priests of the Aaronic order: "those who formerly became priests," "the former priests were many in number." The reason why there were many priests in the Aaronic order is explicitly explained: "because they were prevented by death from continuing in office." Jesus doesn't have that problem, which is why "he holds his priesthood permanently" and will never be succeeded by another priest.

Let's face it, Hebrews 7:11 is explicit in saying that the new priest who arises is one who is "not called according to the order of Aaron." That new priest is Jesus. This is the whole point of Hebrews 7.