Q&A With A Seventy Tonite

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

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

It was a silly answer, biblically speaking, but it was hardly a silly question, given the LDS understanding of priesthood.

But according to you, nothing to see here.... "These aren't the droids you're looking for.... Move along...."

[David T]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

It was a silly answer, biblically speaking, but it was hardly a silly question, given the LDS understanding of priesthood.

But according to you, nothing to see here.... "These aren't the droids you're looking for.... Move along...."

It's not a matter of trying to divert attention from some inherent weakness in our doctrine - it's a matter of recognizing someone in a leadership position, at least as remembered, paraphrased and or quoted by an audience member, who gave a weird answer that doesn't have any sort of support in the accepted teachings of the Church. And without that individual here to defend his answer - of which he is solely responsible for - I have no idea what he was thinking. But if the citing of his answer was accurate as to what he said, frankly, I feel he misspoke.

And I do think it is a silly question, given the LDS understanding of Priesthood. Especially when its taken into consideration that the specific degrees of advancing through specific offices in a set amount of time at set ages is a relatively recent administrative policy, and it was very common for new converts to be instantly ordained as Elders in earlier days.

Christ isn't just a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, he embodies and is the personification of Melchizedek. As the scripture states, "Melchizedek Priesthood", in LDS usage, is just a euphemism for The Priesthood of the Son of God.

In the terms of the Scriptural Narrative, Jesus didn't hold Melchizedek's priesthood - Melchizedek held Christ's priesthood.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

So, if I understand you correctly, the reported answer of the leader is incorrect: Jesus, in your view, does not hold the Aaronic priesthood. Do I understand you correctly?

It's not a matter of trying to divert attention from some inherent weakness in our doctrine - it's a matter of recognizing someone in a leadership position, at least as remembered, paraphrased and or quoted by an audience member, who gave a weird answer that doesn't have any sort of support in the accepted teachings of the Church. And without that individual here to defend his answer - of which he is solely responsible for - I have no idea what he was thinking. But if the citing of his answer was accurate as to what he said, frankly, I feel he misspoke.

And I do think it is a silly question, given the LDS understanding of Priesthood. Especially when its taken into consideration that the specific degrees of advancing through specific offices in a set amount of time at set ages is a relatively recent administrative policy, and it was very common for new converts to be instantly ordained as Elders in earlier days.

Christ isn't just a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, he embodies and is the personification of Melchizedek. As the scripture states, "Melchizedek Priesthood", in LDS usage, is just a euphemism for The Priesthood of the Son of God.

In the terms of the Scriptural Narrative, Jesus didn't hold Melchizedek's priesthood - Melchizedek held Christ's priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

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!

The fact that it can be changed makes it clear that its purpose is not what it seems to be.

It is not a linear presentation which gives us "information" we need to use literally- for me, it is intended to be a substrate or template or catalyst from which we can gain our own revelations about what is presented.

If it presented information we actually needed in a literalistic way, it could not be changed. I think what we need to know is there in pieces like a puzzle for us to put together on our own with the help of personal revelation.

It's like how wherever one goes to the scriptures for answers, you can open any book and random and get your answer right there, because God helps you see the answer in whatever is written- it almost doesn't matter what the text says- you only see the answer.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

So, if I understand you correctly, the reported answer of the leader is incorrect: Jesus, in your view, does not hold the Aaronic priesthood. Do I understand you correctly?

No, not in biblical terms. And it's a weird reversal to even think of it in current Mormon usage, in which, 'Aaronic Priesthood' is understood to be a subset of permissive authority, and not an ecclesiastical office in and of itself. In earlier Restoration Church usage it would be even more weird, as it referred specifically and solely to the modern ecclesiastical office of Priest.

A CEO of an organization doesn't hold the position of mailroom worker, although the mailroom worker's authority to do such comes essentially from the CEO. It would be incorrect to say the CEO held the Mailroom Worker's job, or was a Mailroom Worker.

[Alan]

The priesthood is Christ's to give, not to receive.

I wouldn't take much notice of these comments from the seventy. As Legrand Richards once said - anything above Bishop in the church is just talk.

[mfbukowski]

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.

The above contradicts itself and is clearly inaccurate; earlier in the chapter it is clear that Jesus is NOT the only "priest after the order of Melchizedek"- since clearly Melchizedek himself held that priesthood- and it is highly like that Abraham did as well:

Hebrews 7

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11If 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?

The "other priest" here is clearly the savior- who held the same priesthood as another man- Melchizadek- in fact the priesthood he held is not even named after the savior, but Melchizadek.

Surely their would be other members or it would not be called an "order"

In fact the word used is "taxis" τάξις, which in Strong's is defined as:

tax'-is

From G5021; regular arrangement, that is, (in time) fixed succession (of rank or character), official dignity: - order.

and is the same word used in the phrase translated as "order of Aaron" at the end of the sentence, and as you yourself point out, that clearly refers to many people. So by your own admission the very same word refers to many people.

Also from this passage it is clear that others were members of this order of the priesthood:

1 Peter 2:

1Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, 2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Besides being a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood" (the savior was hardly himself a "generation") it indicates that we are "lively stones" (yes, I get the Peter/Cephas analogy too) come to the savior, the "chief cornerstone" to build up "a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."

The meaning is unmistakable.

There are many members of the Melchizadek Priesthood, Christ himself the chief cornerstone, and we as "lively stones" here to build up a "holy priesthood", and those include faithful members of the church.

You can twist all you like, but Hebrews 11 speaks of a priesthood which is superior above the Aaronic, and doesn't say anywhere that Jesus did not hold the Aaronic Priesthood.

Repeat it over and over- it's not there.

Besides you never answered my other question- as usual- how can you say that God himself does not hold his own Priesthood?

Who gave the authority for the Levitical priesthood to Moses/ Aaron in the first place? If God did not have the authority, (an absurd notion) how could he give it to Moses?

Of course the New Priesthood is not of the order of Aaron! How could it be superior to the order of Aaron if it was the same? Of course someone called to the greater priesthood is not "called" to the lesser priesthood because he already has it!

I think I have adequately represented the church's position- I will only respond if I feel it is necessary because you bring up a new point. As it is, you are simply repeating the same thing over and over.

[ELF1024]

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?

If Aaron is the prepratory (lesser) Preisthood, what makes you think that there is anything that a Aaronic Preisthood holder can do that a (only) Melchizedek Priesthood holder cannot do? I don't see that the question makes any sense.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

Two of your LDS brethren have stated here that it is not LDS doctrine that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron. Would you care to explain why you disagree with these gentlemen?

[mfbukowski]

A CEO of an organization doesn't hold the position of mailroom worker, although the mailroom worker's authority to do such comes essentially from the CEO. It would be incorrect to say the CEO held the Mailroom Worker's job, or was a Mailroom Worker.

Exactly

He is not "called" to be a mailroom worker, though certainly he has the authority to do that job should for some weird reason, he desire to. He has the authority to be a mailworker, but has more important work to do.

In reality of course there is one priesthood with two divisions- the lesser and greater priesthoods, depending on the office, as you say.

[ELF1024]

Mr. Bukowski,

Two of your LDS brethren have stated here that it is not LDS doctrine that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron. Would you care to explain why you disagree with these gentlemen?

Rob;

What difference does it make? Christ was Diety, surely you don't think that there was anything he couldn't do. Priesthood is "The authority and power that God has granted to act in His name"; Christ held all the keys; he is Diety.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

Two of your LDS brethren have stated here that it is not LDS doctrine that Jesus held the priesthood of Aaron. Would you care to explain why you disagree with these gentlemen?

LDS doctrine makes it clear that there is one priesthood with two divisions, the greater and lesser priesthood.

I think Nackhadlow hit the nail on the head.

Can the CEO have the "job" of working in the mailroom? It depends on how you look at it and define it. Is he still the "CEO" if he is working in the mailroom- would he have the CEO's "job"?

Would he no longer be called the "CEO" because he is now the "mailroom worker"?

Who knows and who cares- it is a silly distinction and a silly question.

Why don't you answer my question about the "royal priesthood" generation?

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

No, not in biblical terms. And it's a weird reversal to even think of it in current Mormon usage, in which, 'Aaronic Priesthood' is understood to be a subset of permissive authority, and not an ecclesiastical office in and of itself. In earlier Restoration Church usage it would be even more weird, as it referred specifically and solely to the modern ecclesiastical office of Priest.

A CEO of an organization doesn't hold the position of mailroom worker, although the mailroom worker's authority to do such comes essentially from the CEO. It would be incorrect to say the CEO held the Mailroom Worker's job, or was a Mailroom Worker.

So, is it your position that Jesus once had the "mailroom worker" job (the Aaronic priesthood) and has now advanced to become the "CEO" (Melchizedek priesthood), as Mr. Bukowski seems to think, or that he has always been the "CEO" (that is, always had the Melchizedek priesthood)? If the latter, doesn't this mean he has never had the Aaronic priesthood? I ask, because some of your brethren still are trying to argue against my position that Jesus never had the Aaronic priesthood. Perhaps you fellows could gather in a huddle and work this out.

[David T]

So, is it your position that Jesus once had the "mailroom worker" job (the Aaronic priesthood) and has now advanced to become the "CEO" (Melchizedek priesthood),

No.

[rodheadlee]

I thought this thread was about Temple locations?

[Duncan]

I thought this thread was about Temple locations?

no, but that would be cool! Somehow it got all jammed up jelly tight about the Aaronic Priesthood!

[rodheadlee]

no, but that would be cool! Somehow it got all jammed up jelly tight about the Aaronic Priesthood!

right on

[Duncan]

right on

Well, The Church owns this one lot and its about a 45 minute walk from me house, nice area. Thing is though there is deer there! It is very small and there are trees there, but wait there is more. It's spitting distance from a residential area, which, with deer that would need to be displaced and trees to cut down, means oposition so if I ran the circus I wouldn't put it there. So long story short I am flumoxed as to where they would put it, but I have the email address of one of the stake pres. members and so I could humbly suggest, if he has a lick of input into this, that they put it somewhere on a busline that is kinda secluded and that has a mcdonalds nearby in case anyone needs to retreat to eat! more to come as the plot thickens!

[mfbukowski]

So, is it your position that Jesus once had the "mailroom worker" job (the Aaronic priesthood) and has now advanced to become the "CEO" (Melchizedek priesthood), as Mr. Bukowski seems to think, or that he has always been the "CEO" (that is, always had the Melchizedek priesthood)? If the latter, doesn't this mean he has never had the Aaronic priesthood? I ask, because some of your brethren still are trying to argue against my position that Jesus never had the Aaronic priesthood. Perhaps you fellows could gather in a huddle and work this out.

You are twisting what I said and avoiding the questions I brought up about the Melchizadek Priesthood.

Nothing unusual there.

The point of the analogy was to show that the authority of the mailroom worker came through the CEO.

How can God not have the authority he passes to us- that's the third time I have asked that question.

[Stargazer]

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.

Heb 7:11 says nothing of the kind. I already answered what that verse is about, but you're ignoring what I wrote (not addressing my words) but instead keep pounding on your eisegetic claim that is nowhere confirmed in that verse. mbufkowski piled on in this case as well with his interesting array of multiple translations of that verse, but I'm sure that will make no difference to you. You're very intent upon pulling out of scripture what is not there, I've noticed.

You make this sweeping pronouncement that "It is not something God possesses and then shares with or passes on to people", but the Bible is a living witness against your argument. Moses, who was not a priest after the order of Aaron (for one thing, Aaron was his brother), conferred that order lineage upon Aaron, and where did Moses get it from? He surely didn't invent it out of thin air. The only source was God. Something passed through Moses from God to Aaron. Not a material thing, but a thing nevertheless, and that thing was a grant of authority, a thing which when righteously exercised translates to power. If Aaron could receive it, and Moses could transmit it, then God necessarily originated it, and unless I mistake the matter, God created it, therefore he possessed or possesses it, and it must follow as night does day that God "holds" it.

Second, when Jesus ordained his Apostles, he formally conferred authority upon them. And while there was nothing material conveyed from Jesus's hands to theirs, nevertheless something passed through, that Jesus possessed, that he shared with them. Of course Jesus possessed or "held" it, or he couldn't have given it. This is so obvious that I don't understand how you can deny it. Jesus possessed or held authority that he shared with Moses and his apostles, and if he didn't possess or hold it then he conferred nothing upon them. The evidence in the scriptures is that he conferred something, something that he held.

And yes, priesthood in the Bible is not a power, priesthood is authority. Power grows out of the righteous exercise of that authority, however, hence the miracles that were performed by that authority, for example the healing of the cripple by Peter at the gate of the Temple. There is authority in the name of Jesus Christ, as well, and power in that name when it is invoked in righteousness, for example the man who cast a demon out of a woman -- which led to the apostles rebuking him, and Jesus then rebuking them for their selfishness.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

You are twisting what I said and avoiding the questions I brought up about the Melchizadek Priesthood.

No, I'm not.

You wrote:

The point of the analogy was to show that the authority of the mailroom worker came through the CEO.

Fine. That analogy is perfectly consistent with maintaining that the CEO was never a mailroom worker, isn't it?

You wrote:

How can God not have the authority he passes to us- that's the third time I have asked that question.

Your question doesn't address what Hebrews 7:11 says. You're still ignoring what the text says. I, on the other hand, did not ignore your question. I explained that you are falsely assuming that the priesthood is something God "passes on" to people. It isn't. Priesthood is an office to which he appointed some people. That office was one in which the officeholder acted as an intermediary between God and human beings in offering sacrifices on behalf of people to God. It was not necessary for God to be a priest in order to authorize men to function in the Aaronic priesthood. This is an authority that God instituted, not one that he had and then passed on to people.

[Rob Bowman]

Stargazer,

You wrote:

Heb 7:11 says nothing of the kind. I already answered what that verse is about, but you're ignoring what I wrote (not addressing my words) but instead keep pounding on your eisegetic claim that is nowhere confirmed in that verse. mbufkowski piled on in this case as well with his interesting array of multiple translations of that verse, but I'm sure that will make no difference to you. You're very intent upon pulling out of scripture what is not there, I've noticed.

Hmm. Let's see. I said that Jesus was not a priest in the Aaronic order. Hebrews 7:11 says that Jesus was "a priest...not in the order of Aaron" (NIV, TNIV). How you can seriously claim that Hebrews 7:11 does not say what I claimed it says ("nothing of the kind") is really beyond my understanding. I showed that my understanding agreed with a long list of Mr. Bukowski's translations and several others he didn't list, including the JST! But as you put it, that makes no difference to you.

We have also had a couple of Mormons argue here that Jesus never held the Aaronic priesthood. Why don't you go argue with them?

The rest of your post ignores the text, so I will pass on replying further.

[mfbukowski]

Your question doesn't address what Hebrews 7:11 says. You're still ignoring what the text says. I, on the other hand, did not ignore your question.

You most certainly avoided my questions.

You have not addressed the rest of the Chapter 7- the beginning - about how it was that a man named Melchizadek to whom Abraham paid tithes, held a Priesthood with other apparent members according to Paul, ("But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people).

I explained that you are falsely assuming that the priesthood is something God "passes on" to people. It isn't. Priesthood is an office to which he appointed some people. That office was one in which the officeholder acted as an intermediary between God and human beings in offering sacrifices on behalf of people to God.

You are playing word games. An "office to which he appointed some people" means he gave authority to some people to act "on behalf of people"- using your own words. It is authority "passed on" to people to act on their behalf. Same thing.

But you are ignoring this issue of who this person Melchizadek was and what priesthood he held.

It was not necessary for God to be a priest in order to authorize men to function in the Aaronic priesthood. This is an authority that God instituted, not one that he had and then passed on to people.

Perhaps you have forgotten what the scripture says FOLLOWING your much argued and misinterpreted verse 11:

Hebrews 7:

11If 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? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Who is this "Priest forever after the order of Melchizadek"? The Savior.

Please explain again how it is that the Savior did not hold the priesthood, when the Bible clearly states he did? And who is this person Melchizadek and what is the priesthood he held, which the Savior held and yet is said to be "after the similitude" of this person Melchizadek?

[Ceeboo]

Hey all,

PLEASE forgive my off topic post.

Can someone explain who the "seventy" are?

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

[mfbukowski]

Hey all,

PLEASE forgive my off topic post.

Can someone explain who the "seventy" are?

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

Think College of Cardinals