Q&A With A Seventy Tonite

[mfbukowski]

I don't care what my fellow LDS who disagree with me say about it, because they are wrong.

From what you said, I don't think anyone disagrees with what you said.

It's just that the question is worded so strangely that we appear to disagree. In a sense, he "held" the priesthood and in a sense he did not. As you say, he had the authority and the keys.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

What they are "pelting" you for is equating holding the Aaronic priesthood with being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron."

Here is a clue for you. They are NOT the same thing. Holding the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't require you to be a "priest" "after the order of Aaron."...

Saying "Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood" is not equivalent to/the same as saying that "Jesus was a priest after the order of Aaron".

You, unfortunately are equating two things that are not equal.

It is as simple as that.

Well, we've had something like 80 posts on the subject, and your post is the first to make this distinction.

Query: Isn't it true, then, according to your distinction, that the Bible doesn't mention what you are calling "the Aaronic priesthood"?

[Vance]

Well, we've had something like 80 posts on the subject, and your post is the first to make this distinction.

Well, I don't think that is an accurate description of many of the posts.

Perhaps it is simply that my post was the first one where you actually preceived the distinction.

Query: Isn't it true, then, according to your distinction, that the Bible doesn't mention what you are calling "the Aaronic priesthood"?

Not exactly.

Now that you understand that there is a distinction, perhap we can discuss exactly what that distinction is.

Being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron" is a subset of "a holder of the Aaronic priesthood".

So, then, a "priest" "after the order of Aaron" also must be "a holder of the Aaronic priesthood".

BUT,

"a holder of the Aaronic priesthood" is not required not be a "priest" "after the order of Aaron".

So one can be a holder of the Aaronic Priesthood and still not be a "priest".

So technically, it is the office of "priest" that is mentioned in the Bible, which implies "Aaronic Priesthood". Also, "after the order of Aaron" implies "Aaronic Priesthood".

The New Testament mentions "priests", "chief priests", and "high priests" all of which were operating under the umbrella of the "Aaronic Priesthood". Unfortunately the Bible doesn't clearly define the differences between those term. In fact, in Hebrews, the terms "priest" and "high priest" are at times used interchangably.

Thank God for modern revelation.

As a side note. I will be traveling to Oklahoma and back for the next few days (on assignment from the Danites, hehe) and may not be able to post. There are others that may be willing to continue this discussion with you in the mean time.

[David T]

As I thought I had made clear in my former posts:

the 21st Century Mormon notion of generic "Aaronic Priesthood Power" (a delegation of a portion of God's cosmic and metaphysical power) is not found in the Bible, and is not equivalent to the biblical cultic office of Aaronid Priest.

Using the term Aaronic Priesthood to mean a portion of God's Power is a modern Mormon adaptation, and is not even consistent with its original usage in the earliest Revelation Texts, where it referred solely to a modern Church ecclesiastical office called a 'Priest', and had no reference to cosmic power. (High Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood likewise in the earliest revelations initially meant the ecclesiastical office of 'High Priest' )

[ELF1024]

ELF1024,

You had written:

So I said:

"Then don't respond to posts from me dealing with the interpretation of Scripture. If you can't stand the heat...."

You now say:

It isn't LDS answers that bother me here. It is LDS non-answers and obfuscations and ad hominem attacks against me that bother me.

Consider yourself on "ignore," bud.

/Cheer!

[ELF1024]

Hello Earth to Bowman.

They aren't.

If you would actually read their posts with care you might figure that out.

What they are "pelting" you for is equating holding the Aaronic priesthood with being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron."

Here is a clue for you. They are NOT the same thing. Holding the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't require you to be a "priest" "after the order of Aaron."

Saying "Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood" is not equivalent to/the same as saying that "Jesus was a priest after the order of Aaron".

You, unfortunately are equating two things that are not equal.

It is as simple as that.

But, they do agree "with the affirmation that Jesus was a holder of the Aaronic priesthood."

They just don't agree that that is the same as being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron.

You are equating two things that are not equal. It is as simple as that.

Thanks for finding a way to get thru to him.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

My comments, shown in bold black type, are included in your quotation.

Being a "priest" "after the order of Aaron" is a subset of "a holder of the Aaronic priesthood". CFR

So, then, a "priest" "after the order of Aaron" also must be "a holder of the Aaronic priesthood".

BUT,

"a holder of the Aaronic priesthood" is not required not be a "priest" "after the order of Aaron". CFR

So one can be a holder of the Aaronic Priesthood and still not be a "priest". CFR

So technically, it is the office of "priest" that is mentioned in the Bible, which implies "Aaronic Priesthood". Also, "after the order of Aaron" implies "Aaronic Priesthood".

The New Testament mentions "priests", "chief priests", and "high priests" all of which were operating under the umbrella of the "Aaronic Priesthood". Unfortunately the Bible doesn't clearly define the differences between those term. In fact, in Hebrews, the terms "priest" and "high priest" are at times used interchangably.

Thank God for modern revelation. CFR that "modern revelation" articulates your distinctions as explained above.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

As I thought I had made clear in my former posts:

the 21st Century Mormon notion of generic "Aaronic Priesthood Power" (a delegation of a portion of God's cosmic and metaphysical power) is not found in the Bible, and is not equivalent to the biblical cultic office of Aaronid Priest.

Using the term Aaronic Priesthood to mean a portion of God's Power is a modern Mormon adaptation, and is not even consistent with its original usage in the earliest Revelation Texts, where it referred solely to a modern Church ecclesiastical office called a 'Priest', and had no reference to cosmic power. (High Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood likewise in the earliest revelations initially meant the ecclesiastical office of 'High Priest' )

If you are correct, then modern prophets and teachers who speak about the Aaronic priesthood should not cite the Bible in support of that concept. Right?

Isn't it true, in fact, that the Mormon notion of priesthood as a delegation of God's power is not found in any LDS scripture?

[David T]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

If you are correct, then modern prophets and teachers who speak about the Aaronic priesthood should not cite the Bible in support of that concept. Right?

When done, it's a form of Prooftexting - misreading or re-appropriating or even back-reading into a text to teach or emphasize a current concept even if that's not how it was originally used or understood. You're familiar with that as a legitimate prophetic tool. Paul - and all of the New Testament writers - were masters of it.

[David T]

Isn't it true, in fact, that the Mormon notion of priesthood as a delegation of God's power is not found in any LDS scripture?

It is presented as a delegation of authority, but not as a delegation of power per se. Priesthood Power became a term for the ability of a trusted (by God) priesthood officer to call upon God to use His power in a specific situation. One's priesthood office was presented as assurance to the one being Blessed that the statement would be honored by God. In the early Restored Church, this was the usage of 'binding' and 'sealing', before it was applied solely to Familial Linkage. The ability of one to give a righteous proclamation of power of blessing, and the belief that God would honor the proclamation of one who was trusted and authorized.

In other words, Priesthood Power is used today as shorthand. It's God's power, unleashed by God, but poured out and applied in response to an honored declaration by a loyal and authorized servant. The power doesn't flow from the holder of the Priesthood Office, it comes from God. It's easy to understand how the concept and language were conflated.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Nice save.

When done, it's a form of Prooftexting - misreading or re-appropriating or even back-reading into a text to teach or emphasize a current concept even if that's not how it was originally used or understood. You're familiar with that as a legitimate prophetic tool. Paul - and all of the New Testament writers - were masters of it.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

The doctrinal development is more radical than you seem to acknowledge. Brigham Young, building on but going beyond even Joseph Smith, introduced the idea that priesthood is actually the divine power that God obtained through his exaltation and by which he created and governs the world. I discuss this doctrinal development and its implications in my response to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

It is presented as a delegation of authority, but not as a delegation of power per se. Priesthood Power became a term for the ability of a trusted (by God) priesthood officer to call upon God to use His power in a specific situation. In the early Restored Church, this was the usage of 'binding' and 'sealing', before it was applied solely to Familial Linkage. The ability of one to give a righteous proclamation of power of blessing, and the belief that God would honor the proclamation of one who was trusted and authorized.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

The doctrinal development is more radical than you seem to acknowledge. Brigham Young, building on but going beyond even Joseph Smith, introduced the idea that priesthood is actually the divine power that God obtained through his exaltation and by which he created and governs the world. I discuss this doctrinal development and its implications in my response to chapter 13 of Gospel Principles.

I was addressing your specific comments as to how it was presented in the LDS scriptures. I certainly acknowledge that Brigham Young - and others - expanded upon and popularly redefined the concept. We also know that Joseph in his final years was developing an understanding of a separate aspect of Priesthood as associated with the Temple that more fits the concept of Eternal Power, that initially was quite distinct from the Ecclesiastical Priesthood. Some recent Mormon Studies scholars have referred to this 'Temple Priesthood' as Joseph's 'Cosmic Priesthood'. The (understandable) conflation of the two in the post-Joseph era (part and parcel of eventually disbanding the concept of a Quorum of the Anointed) certainly added to the continuing lack of distinction in terminology. (The temple liturgy itself uses the terms 'Aaronic' and 'Melchizedek' priesthood in a symbolic and re-appropriated way in terms of degrees of a Cosmic Priesthood distinct from its usage in the Ecclesiastical Offices of Priesthood)

[mfbukowski]

Well, we've had something like 80 posts on the subject, and your post is the first to make this distinction.

Query: Isn't it true, then, according to your distinction, that the Bible doesn't mention what you are calling "the Aaronic priesthood"?

The FIRST???

At last! Comes the dawn!

[mfbukowski]

It is presented as a delegation of authority, but not as a delegation of power per se. Priesthood Power became a term for the ability of a trusted (by God) priesthood officer to call upon God to use His power in a specific situation. One's priesthood office was presented as assurance to the one being Blessed that the statement would be honored by God. In the early Restored Church, this was the usage of 'binding' and 'sealing', before it was applied solely to Familial Linkage. The ability of one to give a righteous proclamation of power of blessing, and the belief that God would honor the proclamation of one who was trusted and authorized.

In other words, Priesthood Power is used today as shorthand. It's God's power, unleashed by God, but poured out and applied in response to an honored declaration by a loyal and authorized servant. The power doesn't flow from the holder of the Priesthood Office, it comes from God. It's easy to understand how the concept and language were conflated.

And those of us who have been privileged to lay hands on the heads of the faithful know this is true, and know that the words spoken and the power coming forth is not from us.

[Grundelwalken]

Grundelwalken,

You wrote:

Perhaps as a non-Mormon I can't exactly say "welcome" to this LDS forum, but hello, at any rate.

You wrote:

I agree that I see the world through "biblical glasses." At least, that is my intention and purpose. Your comment suggests that you recognize that Hebrews 7:11 denies that Jesus held the office of priest in the order of Aaron but that you think those who accept modern revelation should accept this idea and view Hebrews 7:11 as mistaken, misleading, miscopied, or something along those lines. Is that right?

One question I have for you, then, is what in modern revelation tells you that Hebrews 7:11 should be set aside in favor of the view that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood. Where are you told this in modern revelation?

Thanks for the welcome. I consider you as much a part of this group as any LDS so it means something to be greeted.

Now to you question.

No, it is not correct that is believe Hebrews 7:11 should be set aside..... I just have a different starting place for understanding and so I see it differently.

I see the Bible as the word of God and not the Word of God as interpreted by man. I see the Scriptures -- AS A WHOLE -- as the means by which we can understand what the ancients believed about God and His Son. I see and know that modern revelation, through modern prophets, is the means for modern man, in this time and place, to come to understand the teachings God has left for His children in the scriptures. One of the benchmarks for interpreting scripture is to find out what the Lord's servants (Amos 3:7) have taught and use that to help understand the context.

I do not believe that Jesus held ONLY the Aaronic priesthood-- He held ALL priesthood (as several have commented before) which includes the Aaronic priesthood. Your interpretation of Hebrews is your interpretation. My interpretation is different and is guided by what we know because of modern revelation.

I know none of this will change your opinions but I don't believe that is the intent of this forum. Now you know what I ( and I think many others here) believe and now we have both our beliefs out on the table. That is about the best we can hope for in this discussion. MW

[Rob Bowman]

Grundelwalken,

You wrote:

Thanks for the welcome. I consider you as much a part of this group as any LDS so it means something to be greeted.

That is most gracious of you.

You wrote:

I do not believe that Jesus held ONLY the Aaronic priesthood-- He held ALL priesthood (as several have commented before) which includes the Aaronic priesthood.

Had this been the intended meaning, the author of Hebrews 7:11 could easily have said so. For example, instead of writing, "a different priest to arise of the order of Melchizedek, and not of the order of Aaron," he could have written, "a different priest to arise, not only of the order of Aaron, but also of the order of Melchizedek." However, given what he wrote, especially when viewed in the context of the passage as a whole, it seems reasonably clear that he meant to say that Jesus is not a priest of the order of Aaron at all.

You wrote:

Your interpretation of Hebrews is your interpretation. My interpretation is different and is guided by what we know because of modern revelation.

The puzzle remains how your interpretation fits the wording and context of Hebrews 7. Also, I should point out that other LDS here have agreed that Jesus is not of the order of Aaron. They choose to stipulate that what the LDS Church means by "the Aaronic priesthood" is something distinct from the priests "of the order of Aaron." I don't agree with this distinction (which has no basis in the Bible or even in the LDS scriptures), but they at least recognize that Hebrews 7 denies that Jesus was a priest in the order of Aaron.

I find it instructive that Luke commends the Berean Jews for the way they received Paul's teaching. Luke reports that the Berean Jews "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, because they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Notice that the Bereans were not asked to trust that the new teaching of Paul was true and to revise their understanding of the Scriptures to conform to whatever Paul said, even if the Scriptures did not seem to agree. Rather, they welcomed Paul's teaching, but carefully studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true.

[zerinus]

Stargazer,

You wrote:

I believe Star has given you the correct answser.

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).

Right. He was a priest in the order of Melchizedek. But as it has been pointed out to you, in Mormonism the higher (Melchizedek) priesthood includes the authority of the Aaronic; and I don't see how that is contradicted by Hebrews 7:11. Let me illustrate with an example. Suppose I was a rich man, and rode around in an expensive limousine, and hired a driver to drive me wherever I wanted to go. If somebody said that I was not the driver of that vehicle, that would be a true statement; but it does not mean that I could not drive the car myself. I own it, so I can drive it if I wanted to, therefore I could equally be called the driver of that car; although I prefer to hire a driver instead. That is how I read Hebrews 7:11. The Mormon GA who (reportedly) said that Jesus was a "holder" of Aaronic priesthood, was right in the sense that the Melchizedek priesthood which Jesus held included within it the lower authority of the Aaronic priesthood. That is not a contradiction to the Hebrews; and the Hebrews does not contradict it. You have to turn a blind eye to the above reasoning to come to that conclusion.

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.

See above.

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?

I haven't read the thread. I have been absent form the board for a week, and I have a lot of catching up to do. But I am guessing that they mean that Jesus was not ordained to the Aaronic priesthood (prior to being ordained to the Melchizedek, as is customary within the LDS Church at the present time); and they may be right about that. Nobody knows for sure. But that does not alter the fact that Jesus' Melchizedek priesthood includes within it the authority of the lesser Aaronic priesthood; and in that sense of the term, He was also a "holder" of the Aaronic priesthood at the same time.

[zerinus]

Hi Rob, I have now had the chance to read through this thread more carefully, and here are some further answers that you might be interested in:

From Post #20:

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.

See my previous reply.

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.

I have a question to ask you: Who was greater, Melchizedek or Jesus? According to your theology, Jesus was, because He was God—unless you want to equate Melchizedek with God. If the latter, then you must conclude that Jesus was called after a priesthood that was after the order of God—i.e. it was God’s priesthood. If the former, then you need to find an explanation for how Jesus the greater could have been after the order of a priesthood of someone lesser than Himself?

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.

According to the dictionary definition, power can also be defined as authority. For example, a police officer could say that he has the power to enforce the law, meaning that he has the authority to do so. And if his authority allows him to carry a gun (and use it if required), then you could argue that that gives him real power too.

From post #24

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

That definitely wins the prize for the dumbest post in the thread!

From post #25

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.

I see a contradiction here. If Jesus held the priesthood “in the likeness of Melchizedek” (your words), that makes two people who held that priesthood: one Jesus and the other Melchizedek. The Bible (OT and NT) makes it clear that Melchizedek was a real person who blessed Abraham, and to whom Abraham gave tithes. And if he genuinely held that priesthood, that makes them two people, not one.

From post #38

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.

It is not inconceivable that Jesus was ordained to the Aaronic priesthood prior to being ordained to the Melchizedek. The NT teaches that when He was 12 years old (the earliest age at which we ordain to the Aaronic priesthood), while visiting Jerusalem with His parents, He found his way to the temple, and started debating with Jewish Rabbis (of the Aaronic order) about the various aspects of the Jewish law; and it says that He was “about His Father’s business” in doing so (i.e. He acted under the direction of the Father to do so). Could it be that He has been ordained by His Father (or perhaps by Moses at the commandment of the Father) to that priesthood at that age (prior to receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood at a later date); and His Father had instructed Him to go to the temple to show the Jewish priests His superior wisdom to them at that tender age? It is an interesting thought which cannot be simply dismissed.

From post #46

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

It is not unheard of for a CEO to act as “mailroom worker” sometimes. Have you heard of Harrods, the most expensive store in London? It used to be owned by the Egyptian tycoon Al-Fayed. He

a few years ago to the Qatari Royal Family for £1.5 billion ($2.46 billion). While he was the owner of that store, however, he occasionally used to serve behind the butches counter because it was his shop, and he enjoyed doing it!

From post #52

Melchizedek was a priest of God Most High in the time of the patriarchs. Psalm 110:4 says that the Messiah, David's descendant, will be a priest "according to the order of Melchizedek."

Great! This is the third time that you have admitted that Melchizedek was a real person in the days of the Patriarchs who held this priesthood. I hope you are now going to answer the question posed to you earlier, about there being at least two people who held that priesthood. So what is your answer to that question then? And who held that priesthood first—Jesus or Melchizedek?

From post #102

Well, we've had something like 80 posts on the subject, and your post is the first to make this distinction.

Query: Isn't it true, then, according to your distinction, that the Bible doesn't mention what you are calling "the Aaronic priesthood"?

Sorry Rob, I couldn’t make sense of that one.

From post #108

Isn't it true, in fact, that the Mormon notion of priesthood as a delegation of God's power is not found in any LDS scripture?

Not really. It is a delegation of God’s own priesthood:

Moses 8

:

19 And the Lord ordained Noah after

his own order,

and commanded him that he should go forth and declare his Gospel unto the children of men, even as it was given unto Enoch.

“Order” here means priesthood. In other words, God has a priesthood, and He ordained Noah to that priesthood. And if God has a priesthood, then He must use it in some way, or do something with it; and whatever He does with it constitutes the power and authority of that priesthood. And if He confers that priesthood on someone, that means that He confers some, if not all of the “powers” that go with it, no?

From post #117

I find it instructive that Luke commends the Berean Jews for the way they received Paul's teaching. Luke reports that the Berean Jews "were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, because they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Notice that the Bereans were not asked to trust that the new teaching of Paul was true and to revise their understanding of the Scriptures to conform to whatever Paul said, even if the Scriptures did not seem to agree. Rather, they welcomed Paul's teaching, but carefully studied the Scriptures to see if what Paul was teaching was true.

Well, nothing new about that. Who says that Mormons don’t “examine the scriptures,” which of course includes the modern revelations of the Church? They are certainly encouraged to do just that.

[bu11fr0g]

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.

It is one of the most idiotic falacies to imply causality to correlation. Regression analysis cannot determine causality.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You have made a valiant effort to defend the idea that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood without being an Aaronic priest, but it won't work if one reads Hebrews 7:11 in its immediate context. Jesus is expressly said not to be an Aaronic priest because he's from the wrong tribe for that--he's of the tribe of Judah, whereas Aaronic priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

[ELF1024]

zerinus,

You have made a valiant effort to defend the idea that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood without being an Aaronic priest, but it won't work if one reads Hebrews 7:11 in its immediate context. Jesus is expressly said not to be an Aaronic priest because he's from the wrong tribe for that--he's of the tribe of Judah, whereas Aaronic priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

So, lemme get this right. Your saying that the Son of God, didn't hold his own Priesthood because he wasn't of Levi? Really?

[mfbukowski]

So, lemme get this right. Your saying that the Son of God, didn't hold his own Priesthood because he wasn't of Levi? Really?

Gosh, surely you don't mean he could have picked any tribe he wanted to do you?

Clearly he did not have the authority to do that.

Do you think God is God or something?

[mfbukowski]

It is one of the most idiotic falacies to imply causality to correlation. Regression analysis cannot determine causality.

Hey we need you over on the "First Cause" thread.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You have made a valiant effort to defend the idea that Jesus held the Aaronic priesthood without being an Aaronic priest, but it won't work if one reads Hebrews 7:11 in its immediate context. Jesus is expressly said not to be an Aaronic priest because he's from the wrong tribe for that--he's of the tribe of Judah, whereas Aaronic priests had to be of the tribe of Levi.

LOL! Is that the best you can do then? Sorry, it won’t work. What you are trying to do is to bury your head in the sand, and then try to force my head in the sand too. Unfortunately you can’t do that. You can stick your own head in the sand, but can’t push mine in there. Allow me to quote you something from LDS scripture:

D&C 68

:

17 For the

firstborn

[of Aaron] holds the right of the

presidency

over this [Aaronic] priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.

18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the

firstborn

of Aaron.

19 But,

as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood

[i.e. regardless of his lineage or descent]

has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found,

provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power, under the hands of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.

Do you get the idea now? It is not necessary that Jesus should have been of the lineage of Aaron to have “held the Aaronic priesthood,” because that office is embedded in the office of the Melchizedek priesthood, regardless of one’s lineage or descent. I know it is really hard for you to grasp that; but just try; and you might succeed; you never know.

I can guess what you are going to say now. You are going to say that that still presents a problem for Jesus to have been ordained to the Aaronic priesthood at the age of 12, prior to Him having been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Actually, it doesn’t. If you look at verse 17 above, you will notice that that rule applies to the presidency over the Aaronic priesthood (i.e. it applies to the Presiding Bishop of the Church), not to everybody else. Furthermore, if you look at D&C 48:32-34, you will find that those who qualify themselves to obtaining these two priesthoods actually become the seeds of Moses and Aaron, so that the rule is not violated. Sorry Rob, you don’t have a leg to stand on. And burying your head in the sand don’t work either. Well, it may work for you, but it won’t work for anybody else! You are just making yourself look sillier and sillier all the time.