Bob Oliverio Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 For my fellow members who still contend that the priesthood ban was about lineage, and not race, can I respectfully and formally ask these questions:Where is the doctrine that identifies a priesthood ban on lineage and what lineage was banned?How was this lineage determined by those making the decision to exclude male individuals from the priesthood?What was the lineage of Elijah Able that allowed him the priesthood? 1
zerinus Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 For my fellow members who still contend that the priesthood ban was about lineage, and not race, can I respectfully and formally ask these questions:Where is the doctrine that identifies a priesthood ban on lineage and what lineage was banned?How was this lineage determined by those making the decision to exclude male individuals from the priesthood?What was the lineage of Elijah Able that allowed him the priesthood?What do you see as the distinction between lineage race and? What is the difference between the two?
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 You are kidding right? Try the Old Testament and look up "Levi", "Levite", "tribe of Levi". The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was limited to descendants of Aaron or members of the tribe of Levi. To this day, Jews, who, aside from Mormons, are the only group to claim the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood today, still impose this lineage restriction on the priesthood. Over 99% of Jews are not qualified to hold the priesthood because they lack the required lineage.
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 You are kidding right? Try the Old Testament and look up "Levi", "Levite", "tribe of Levi". The Aaronic/Levitical priesthood was limited to descendants of Aaron or members of the tribe of Levi. To this day, Jews, who, aside from Mormons, are the only group to claim the Aaronic/Levitical priesthood today, still impose this lineage restriction on the priesthood. Over 99% of Jews are not qualified to hold the priesthood because they lack the required lineage.Jewish/Old Testament ideas and concepts and significance of priesthood are not at all the same as modern LDS concepts. It's comparing Buttons and Bananas. 1
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) FUN FACT:If the priesthood was to be withheld from all descendents of Ham by patrilinial descent, then there was no certain way to determine that in Brigham Young's day. DNA technology has revealed a lot. The Y-chromosome is passed from father to son without mixture with maternal DNA. Every son inherates his father's Y-chromosome unaltered except by mutation. The modern Y-chromosome haplogroup tree indicates that the entire haplogroup E must be descendants of Ham if black Africans are descendents of Ham. Many Caucasians belong to the E haplogroup. In fact, E1b1b is essentially the Caucasian branch of the E haplogroup. It includes most Berbers and 20% of Jews among others. A small but significant percentage of Europeans belong to the E haplogroup. The most notorius European of Haplogroup E was Adolf Hitler.linkhttp://www.scs.illin...ogroupsMaps.pdfhttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20014645-503543.html Edited February 17, 2012 by dougtheavenger
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Jewish/Old Testament ideas and concepts and significance of priesthood are not at all the same as modern LDS concepts. It's comparing Buttons and Bananas.I beg to differ. Clearly the idea that the priesthood can be limited by patrilineal descent is not an Mormon invention. Furthermore, certain ordinances are still restricted to the sons of Levi in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This fact alone indicates that the lineage requirement of the priesthood is not simply an extension of the pattern of discrimination against blacks in American history. You realize, Thomas S Monson is disqualified by lineage from performing certain ordinances.
Bikeemikey Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 You realize, Thomas S Monson is disqualified by lineage from performing certain ordinances.If you are going to say this in support of your position you may as well take the extra minute to give an example. Without an example it just sounds, well, foolish.
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 If you are going to say this in support of your position you may as well take the extra minute to give an example. Without an example it just sounds, well, foolish.D&C 13:1Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.Animal sacrifices will at some future date be performed in the church, but only by literal descendants of Levi.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 D&C 13:1Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.Animal sacrifices will at some future date be performed in the church, but only by literal descendants of Levi.Sorry, this is wrong. Animal sacrifices are an ordinance of the lesser priesthood and anyone with the higher can administer all the ordinances of the lesser (subject to the permission of the person who has the key which means ultimately President Monson). While animal sacrifice will be brought back for at least one sacrifice anyone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood could perform the ordinance. The sons of Levi will perform at least one of these sacrifices but that does not mean they are the only ones qualified to perform it. 1
Bikeemikey Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 D&C 13:1Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.Animal sacrifices will at some future date be performed in the church, but only by literal descendants of Levi.Echoing The Nehor's thoughts: Your reading of this is fundamentally incorrect as it relates to the position on Levitical authority.It may also be correct on the issue of animal sacrifice. There are lots of ways to offer a to the lord in righteousness. It is my understanding that it is conjecture that states said offering will be animal sacrifice. Welcome to be shown that is not the case. If I am mistaken on this last point your first point is still inaccurate.
dougtheavenger Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Sorry, this is wrong. Animal sacrifices are an ordinance of the lesser priesthood and anyone with the higher can administer all the ordinances of the lesser (subject to the permission of the person who has the key which means ultimately President Monson). While animal sacrifice will be brought back for at least one sacrifice anyone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood could perform the ordinance. The sons of Levi will perform at least one of these sacrifices but that does not mean they are the only ones qualified to perform it.The scriptures specify the sons of Levi. So, even if nonLevites can perform animal sacrifices, there are going to be ordinances performed and the lineage of those performing them is specified in this revelation.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The scriptures specify the sons of Levi. So, even if nonLevites can perform animal sacrifices, there are going to be ordinances performed and the lineage of those performing them is specified in this revelation.I didn't deny that. I denied that Levites have the unique ability to perform this ordinance in the LDS church. They do not. I could do it tomorrow if President Monson told me to and I'm as European Ephraimite as they get....like this guy: I can't promise I'd be good at the ordinance. I'm not good with killing and blood so it might be messier then strictly necessary. See my sigline for how it might end up.
guitarist Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 A literal descendant of Aaron has the authority to act as Bishop without counselors (D&C 107:68-76). The office of High Priest is authorized in the absence of an Aaronite to officiate in that office, with counselors, but as I understand it, it is something we are only authorized to do in their absence.
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 While animal sacrifice will be brought back for at least one sacrifice anyone holding the Melchizedek Priesthood could perform the ordinance. Sorry, I don't buy the idea of some future animal sacrifice schtick. It comes from Joseph musing on what was meant practically by the Restoration of All Things, the nature of priesthood, and an assumption that all things ever done by priesthood action need to come back at some point. The strong teaching that the death of Christ ended for all time sacrifice by shedding of blood makes this concept silly.Animal Sacrifice is an outdated, old-world, pre-modern act of worship. It's done. There is no longer any significance for anyone in such an action in the context of this Church. It's not something anyone needs to be looking forward to.
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The scriptures specify the sons of Levi. So, even if nonLevites can perform animal sacrifices, there are going to be ordinances performed and the lineage of those performing them is specified in this revelation.D&C 84:For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.Actual blood lineage is moot in the modern Church. All blessings come through adoption through covenant.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 A literal descendant of Aaron has the authority to act as Bishop without counselors (D&C 107:68-76). The office of High Priest is authorized in the absence of an Aaronite to officiate in that office, with counselors, but as I understand it, it is something we are only authorized to do in their absence.The office of High Priest is the equivalent of the Presiding Bishopric. The heir of Aaron is supposed to hold that office but we don't have one worthy and ready. Even if we had one they would have to be recognized by the First Presidency as worthy to hold the office. If they are not worthy we will keep on as we have been until we find one who is.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Sorry, I don't buy the idea of some future animal sacrifice schtick. It comes from Joseph musing on what was meant practically by the Restoration of All Things, the nature of priesthood, and an assumption that all things ever done by priesthood action need to come back at some point. The strong teaching that the death of Christ ended for all time sacrifice by shedding of blood makes this concept silly.Animal Sacrifice is an outdated, old-world, pre-modern act of worship. It's done. There is no longer any significance for anyone in such an action in the context of this Church. It's not something anyone needs to be looking forward to.One could argue that our pagan-like feast every Sunday where we eat the body and drink the blood of a dead but living God is also outdated, old-word, and pre-modern. Same with polygamy, fasting, and a host of other practices. I would concede this person is right. I disagree that because something is not 'modern' it should be looked down on as archaic and unworthy of us. Our Savior participated in this sacrament. It is a little unnerving to look down on something Jesus took very seriously.Just last night I said a prayer over the cooked carcass of a dead animal before devouring it. How far from animal sacrifice is that? The ward barbeque is a lot like the old concept of temple sacrifice except we delegate the butchery to others and that the grill isn't consecrated first.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Actual blood lineage is moot in the modern Church.I do not know that I'd go that far. I would say that we shouldn't judge based on it.
guitarist Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 The office of High Priest is the equivalent of the Presiding Bishopric. The heir of Aaron is supposed to hold that office but we don't have one worthy and ready. Even if we had one they would have to be recognized by the First Presidency as worthy to hold the office. If they are not worthy we will keep on as we have been until we find one who is.No arguments there, just simply pointing out another case of lineage privilege, since there seemed to be some doubt about that by some in this thread.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 No arguments there, just simply pointing out another case of lineage privilege, since there seemed to be some doubt about that by some in this thread.Yeah, and why would we need a tribal assignment in patriarchal blessing if it doesn't matter?
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah, and why would we need a tribal assignment in patriarchal blessing if it doesn't matter?Tradition. That's how the practice found its way into Patriarchal blessings to begin with, and when the ritual became standardized, this aspect was codified along with it. I can easily see this part of it being phased out. I've heard of a few individuals recently (in different areas) whose Patriarchs declared they were children of Abraham, without any further detail. And we know this is part of Christian Adoption in general.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Tradition. That's how the practice found its way into Patriarchal blessings to begin with, and when the ritual became standardized, this aspect was codified along with it. I can easily see this part of it being phased out. I've heard of a few individuals recently (in different areas) whose Patriarchs declared they were children of Abraham, without any further detail. And we know this is part of Christian Adoption in general.You can't tell me my 40 hour seemingly-exhaustive study of my tribe's blessings, responsibilities, destiny, and banner was wasted. Not a chance.
rongo Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 (edited) Tradition. That's how the practice found its way into Patriarchal blessings to begin with, and when the ritual became standardized, this aspect was codified along with it. I can easily see this part of it being phased out. I've heard of a few individuals recently (in different areas) whose Patriarchs declared they were children of Abraham, without any further detail. And we know this is part of Christian Adoption in general.CFR on this (I know it will be hard/impossible, given the "I've heard of . . ." nature of it).I don't believe this, because tribe designation is the *one* part of a patriarchal blessing that has to be there, and one of the things that a stake president is supposed to review in his twice-annually review of patriarchal blessings in his stake. I personally know people whose blessings had to be re-done because there was no declared lineage in the printed, official version. Edited February 17, 2012 by rongo 1
guitarist Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah, and why would we need a tribal assignment in patriarchal blessing if it doesn't matter?I never said it didn't matter; on the contrary, I think it does. Each tribe of Israel receives specific blessings connected to that tribe, and those blessings are extended to you as a part of its membership. My Patriarchal blessing has a whole paragraph on my tribe and ancestors, and the blessings I receive as an heir.
David T Posted February 17, 2012 Posted February 17, 2012 CFR on this (I know it will be hard/impossible, given the "I've heard of . . ." nature of it).I don't believe this, because tribe designation is the *one* part of a patriarchal blessing that has to be there, and one of the things that a stake president is supposed to review in his twice-annually review of patriarchal blessings in his stake. I personally know people whose blessings had to be re-done because there was no declared lineage in the printed, official version.The most recent is of a Missionary who just came into the field here. He's a convert, and was surprised about that part, based on what others had told him about it. He asked about it, and was told if he wanted a new one, or an addendum, he could, but saw no essential reason to do so. Blessings are re-done by request, if one feels it's off, or missing something, one can request or apply for an addendum, generally at the Stake President's discretion.
Recommended Posts