Priesthood

[altersteve]

The last thread was getting very off topic, so I thought I would make a new thread where we could continue the discussion.

Jesterss said:

Because now I have found that Moses was actually a priest. So you don't go from being prophet or teacher or anything else to being included in the priesthood, unless you are in fact a priest. Hence the nomenclature, priesthood. One must be of a priestly nature in order to be in the priesthood.

A prophet is not a priesthood office. But as I've said, and as all of us have said, you can in fact be something other than a priest and hold the priesthood. Deacons, teachers, priests, elders, high priests, patriarchs, Seventies, and Apostles are all "of a priestly nature."

Once again, the Aaronic Priesthood consists of the following offices: deacon, teacher, and priest. A bishop, although he is a high priest (I believe) who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, is also considered an Aaronic Priesthood office, as he is the president of the priests quorum. The Melchizedek Priesthood holders are elders, high priests, patriarchs, Seventies, and Apostles. That probably doesn't make any sense, since you don't seem to be familiar with LDS doctrine on this topic, but I suggest doing as I said before and studying the information on the priesthood in the standard works and on lds.org, and you might learn something about it.

Edited October 13, 2011 by altersteve

[shalamabobbi]

Priesthood threads tend to get ignored by non LDS so I have my doubts about a continuation of the discussion, but we'll see.

I think the problem of understanding the concepts involved with the priesthood is illustrated very well by the scripture in psalms quoted by Jesteress. If we did not have that particular psalm we would not know *Biblically* that Moses held the priesthood. Must the Bible record the fact of all who held the priesthood? If so it would be an incredibly long and boring text.

If Moses held the priesthood could it then be part of the law of Moses that was done away, since it preceded it?

Simply assuming that the priesthood was part of the law of Moses and done away is faulty because the law of Moses was replaced with a higher law of the Gospel, sermon on the mount, (Christ replaced the old law with a higher standard rather than leave us with no standard whatsoever).

Likely is the fact that there was no need to mention the priesthood much in the New Testament simply because it wasn't necessary. Culturally it was understood by the audience. Just as the instruction to not drive drunk does not need to mention cars to be understood to apply to cars.

Besides the verses given so far that imply the priesthood (or state it explicitly for LDS) you have the story of the sons of sceva who attempted to use the name of Christ without proper authority and received the reproach "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?". We know Christ held the Melkizedek priesthood(actually He is the source of that priesthood) so what does that imply about Paul in this verse?

John 1:19-25

19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

22Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

23He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

24And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

25And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

They recognized that baptism needed proper authority to be performed. And yet when the resurrected Christ commands the apostles to go into all the world teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, this aspect magically disappears? Neither baptism nor the authority to baptize were done away then.

Again this is the fatal flaw in basing a religion solely upon a record of the same. What religion is, is greater than what some few chose to record of it. You have to make ad hoc decisions about the completeness of that record when culturally understood principles might be left out entirely.

More so if the LDS have the proper understanding, since the Apostles of old would know and understand that the record is not expected to fulfill that function and that a restoration of all things would occur in the future, that the test would be the same for those of latter days as it was for those of their day. They would have to hear from those who are sent by authority from heaven.

An all powerful God that cannot speak? They would have to hear from those who spoke by the power of the Holy Ghost and receive a testimony from the same, not from any private interpretation or study of scripture alone.

[Cobalt-70]

A prophet is not a priesthood office. But as I've said, and as all of us have said, you can in fact be something other than a priest and hold the priesthood. Deacons, teachers, priests, elders, high priests, patriarchs, Seventies, and Apostles are all "of a priestly nature."

I agree. There is a distinction between holding priesthood power, and holding priesthood office. Women who have been endowed hold Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood power, but are not (currently) ordained to priesthood offices. This is why endowed "priestesses" can officiate in temple ceremonies on behalf of women, and why in the 19th century, women used to give priesthood healing blessings to other women and to their children. So you could say that anyone with priesthood power, regardless of office is a priest or priestess in a general sense.

[altersteve]

What critics don't understand is that the law of Moses was not "done away with," it was replaced with the higher law of God, which was restored by Jesus Christ. A higher priesthood, naturally, replaced the lesser Aaronic priesthood. This is what Hebrews 7 says. The argument that priesthood is no longer operating on the earth is weak when the scriptures are read in light of this and in light of knowledge of what the priesthood really is. It's not merely a sacrificial system used by Levitical priests as Jesterss seems to think.

[divinenature]

What critics don't understand is that the law of Moses was not "done away with," it was replaced with the higher law of God, which was restored by Jesus Christ. A higher priesthood, naturally, replaced the lesser Aaronic priesthood. This is what Hebrews 7 says. The argument that priesthood is no longer operating on the earth is weak when the scriptures are read in light of this and in light of knowledge of what the priesthood really is. It's not merely a sacrificial system used by Levitical priests as Jesterss seems to think.

Could you highlight the difference between being "done away with" and being "replaced." I can't see a difference. Perhaps you mean "added to" rather than "replaced." However, LDS do not live the law of Moses, so I don't think you mean "added to." Could you elaborate, please?

[shalamabobbi]

One more point about the quote from psalms that states that Moses held the priesthood. Had that scripture not been included in the Bible we would be completely in the dark on the matter and false conclusions could and would be drawn by traditional Christians. Where is the source material from which the Psalmist obtained this knowledge? If Moses held the priesthood where did he obtain it? Do traditional Christians really not understand the implications of trying to found the church upon scripture alone when it is obvious that the record is incomplete concerning all aspects of what constituted the church anciently?

[altersteve]

Could you highlight the difference between being "done away with" and being "replaced." I can't see a difference. Perhaps you mean "added to" rather than "replaced." However, LDS do not live the law of Moses, so I don't think you mean "added to." Could you elaborate, please?

What I meant was "fulfilled." Sorry for the confusion.

[divinenature]

What I meant was "fulfilled." Sorry for the confusion.

Oh thanks!

[Damien the Leper]

I agree. There is a distinction between holding priesthood power, and holding priesthood office. Women who have been endowed hold Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood power, but are not (currently) ordained to priesthood offices. This is why endowed "priestesses" can officiate in temple ceremonies on behalf of women, and why in the 19th century, women used to give priesthood healing blessings to other women and to their children. So you could say that anyone with priesthood power, regardless of office is a priest or priestess in a general sense.

Does the priesthood for women tie into Compton, Anderson, and Bergera's Nauvoo Endowment Companies and Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Annointed?

[erichard]

...

A prophet is not a priesthood office. ...

Hi,

This verse seems to imply differently:

And he gave some, apostles; and some,

prophets

; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; --Eph 4:11

I realize that the D&C does not speak of the office of Prophet, but we must not forget that many more things are yet to be revealed.

Jeremiah 1:5 says:

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I

ordained

thee a prophet unto the nations.

Can a spirit hold the Priesthood? I would think they can. Since Jeremiah was fore-ordained to be a prophet, then it appears he held the Priesthood before he was born.

Thus, it is also likely that Moses held the Priesthood and was fore-ordained to the calling he held BEFORE he was born.

And many others, including the Prophet Joseph Smith.

So all that is needed is revelation activating the Priesthood that these Prophets already had been given as a spirit.

Richard

[altersteve]

Can a spirit hold the Priesthood? I would think they can. Since Jeremiah was fore-ordained to be a prophet, then it appears he held the Priesthood before he was born.

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. Otherwise he wouldn't have needed to be ordained to the priesthood again. I think "foreordained" in this sense simply means "called in advance." For example, Joseph Smith was "called" to be a prophet before he ever was ordained to the priesthood. I could be wrong, but I don't think I or anyone else (besides Christ) had the priesthood before living here on earth.

Edited October 16, 2011 by altersteve

[Cobalt-70]

Does the priesthood for women tie into Compton, Anderson, and Bergera's Nauvoo Endowment Companies and Joseph Smith's Quorum of the Annointed?

I'm not sure. I don't have access to those books.