Adam And The Priesthood

[zerinus]

Do we know which priesthood Melchizedek had?

Yes, "the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God" (D&C 107:3).

[Cold Steel]

What do you mean by your opening comments? That [modern prophets] have explained the fact the OT prophets (and BoM prophets?) held the Melch?

It's not just prophets, but virtually all Book of Mormon scholars realize that priesthood was required to offer up sacrifices under the Law of Moses. For example, the scriptures nowhere state that King David was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, yet he offered up sacrifices to the Lord and no one challenged him. He was not a Levite; neither was he entitled to the Levitical priesthood, yet the scriptures speak of him offering up sacrifices that only a priest could perform.

Perhaps the best chapter to read is Alma 13, which states "that the Lord God ordained priests after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son.... And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption." (Alma 13:1-2)

So when you see people who are not after the order of the Aaronic priesthood officiating in priestly duties, we can assume that they're doing it by virtue of the Holy Priesthood. "And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the Holy Order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest -- this high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world...being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things...." (6-7)

People have accused Joseph Smith of a progressive theology, but this chapter lays out the higher priesthood perfectly as he taught it, and it explains how Bible and Book of Mormon prophets could officiate in sacrificial ceremonies that otherwise only a Levite could do.

.

[Cobalt-70]

Alma 13 speaks of everyone being pre-ordained to the Priesthood (verse 5), not just a few. However, only a few realize the ordination in this life.

I don't read Alma 13:5 that way. I don't think it says that everybody is foreordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Only those who exercise "exceedingly great faith" (v. 4). In other words, more than just run-of-the-mill faith. And, presumably, Smith believed at this point that they had to be male.

[Cobalt-70]

Are you saying that people are no longer foreordained, and unlike as of old, those fore-ordinations are no longer bound on earth as in heaven? If so, your perception of things is wildly different from my LDS experience (not that this is news).

No, just that foreordination is not how modern Mormons understand that they have received the priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

Are you suggesting that foreordination to the Priesthood elimnates the need for the ordinance to be peformed in mortality? If so, I think you need to do some more research on the subject. I suggest the book Magnifying Priesthood Power by Robert Millett at page 38 on Foreordination. It is online here.

Everyone who receives the priesthood in mortality was foreordained to that calling in the preexistence.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Book of Mormon says that the Melchizedek priesthood is given through foreordination. But remember, the Book of Mormon was translated in 1829, which was about 2 or 3 years before Joseph Smith worked out the distinctive Mormon meaning of the Melchizedek priesthood. Smith didn't even distinguish between Aaronic and Melchizedek offices until 1831. Moreover, Alma 13 was translated before Smith and Cowdery realized that an angel had to come down and give them authority to baptize.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Ryan.Samples]

I don't see why such a distinction is necessary. Modern prophets teach what is in canonized revelation.

I don't want to muddy the thread any more than I already have, so I've transferred my question to a new thread. Thanks.

[zerinus]

It's not just prophets, but virtually all Book of Mormon scholars realize that priesthood was required to offer up sacrifices under the Law of Moses. For example, the scriptures nowhere state that King David was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, yet he offered up sacrifices to the Lord and no one challenged him. He was not a Levite; neither was he entitled to the Levitical priesthood, yet the scriptures speak of him offering up sacrifices that only a priest could perform.

The structure of sacrificial rites under Mosaic law were complex, and not all sacrifices had to be performed by a priest. Voluntary offerings were sacrificed by the person making offering, but in the presence of a priest. David (and Solomon) did not have to have the priesthood in order to make those offerings. In fact, the sacrifices attributed to them were made in such large numbers that they couldn't have done them all by themselves, but by their servants on their behalf. Here is a quote:

1 Kings 8:

5 And king Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude.

Those sacrifices were not done just by Solomon, but by "all the congregation of Israel" that had gathered round him. It was done in the presence of the priests, but the people who did them were not themselves priests. It cannot be concluded from this that David and Solomon were priests.

[wenglund]

No, just that foreordination is not how modern Mormons understand that they have received the priesthood.

We don't?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Log]

I don't read Alma 13:5 that way. I don't think it says that everybody is foreordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

I, on the other hand, do read it that way (Alma 13:4-5), and I think it does say that - at least with respect to males.

It falls in line with the initiatory ordinances as well, which are representative of the premortal existence, wherein we were all fore-ordained, and the realization of that ordination is predicated upon our faithfulness here.

I cannot speak to the female side, as I don't know how they read.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I, on the other hand, do read it that way (Alma 13:4-5), and I think it does say that - at least with respect to males.

It falls in line with the initiatory ordinances as well, which are representative of the premortal existence, wherein we were all fore-ordained, and the realization of that ordination is predicated upon our faithfulness here.

I cannot speak to the female side, as I don't know how they read.

I think you are right on this one.

[Mark Beesley]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Book of Mormon says that the Melchizedek priesthood is given through foreordination. But remember, the Book of Mormon was translated in 1829, which was about 2 or 3 years before Joseph Smith worked out the distinctive Mormon meaning of the Melchizedek priesthood. Smith didn't even distinguish between Aaronic and Melchizedek offices until 1831. Moreover, Alma 13 was translated before Smith and Cowdery realized that an angel had to come down and give them authority to baptize.

How do we know when Alma 13 was translated in relation to the appearance of John the Baptist. And, why does that matter?

Part of the problem may arise with a misunderstanding of what foreordination is. In your post that I initially responded to, you wrote, ". . .foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. . . " That is incorrect. No one was foreordained with the Melchezidek Priesthood. They were foreordained to receive the Melchezidek Priesthood in mortality. Foreordination is a promise of a future event, i.e. ordination in mortality.

Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and all others had to have the ordination performed in mortality in order to act irrespective of any foreordination in the preexistence.

[Maidservant]

I can understand that kind of statement in terms of doctrine, but not covenants / obedience. Does not Jesus call us to total and radical obedience from the outset, rather than in incremental stages?

No. No one can obey completely from the outset. We have repentance. Covenants are births. And so they follow the pattern of births. When an infant is born, he is called to be a man and walk, but he won't get to that for some time. So incremental stages are exactly how it works--line upon line, precept upon precept. We should all be doing the best we can and not make excuses for ourselves, of course.

[David T]

Part of the problem may arise with a misunderstanding of what foreordination is.

He's not talking about the 'Truth' of the matter. He's speaking of the Book of Mormon/Nephite understanding of the matter as expressed in the text. They don't have to be (and I don't think they are) the same thing.

You're misunderstand the perspective Cobalt is expressing.

Edited May 2, 2012 by David T

[Cobalt-70]

We don't?

No. If you went to your Stake President and claimed that you had been fore-ordained as a High Priest, and therefore was a High Priest, because your priesthood was without beginning of days or end of years, I don't think he'd buy that.

[David T]

Book of Mormon expressed the idea of the Spirit of God confirming and commissioning and activating the for-ordination and authority.

Mosiah 18:

12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God,

Edited May 2, 2012 by David T

[Cobalt-70]

I, on the other hand, do read it that way (Alma 13:4-5), and I think it does say that - at least with respect to males.

It falls in line with the initiatory ordinances as well, which are representative of the premortal existence, wherein we were all fore-ordained, and the realization of that ordination is predicated upon our faithfulness here.

I cannot speak to the female side, as I don't know how they read.

If the Book of Mormon taught that everyone was fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, then there would have been no need for the certain elect few High Priests, like Alma, to have ordained priests and teachers (see Alma 6:1). These priests and teachers were not Melchizedek priests. Had everyone been fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, then these priests and teachers would have already had the Melchizedek priesthood, and there would be no need for a fore-ordained Melchizedek priest to ordain them by the laying on of hands.

As to the Initiatory argument, the washing and anointing ceremony says nothing about fore-ordination. The Endowment ceremony as a whole is an endowment of priesthood power to the participant. Through the ceremony, the participant (either male or female) receives priesthood power and is prepared to officiate in the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood.

That mechanism for ordination to the Melchizedek priesthood is quite different from the fore-ordination mechanism described in the Alma 13. It is also much different from the 1831 "endowment" in which Melchizedek priests were considered to have received their priesthood through the laying on of hands. All the changes simply reflect the fact that Mormon doctrine on the Melchizedek priesthood evolved between 1829 and 1842.

[Log]

If the Book of Mormon taught that everyone was fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, then there would have been no need for the certain elect few High Priests, like Alma, to have ordained priests and teachers (see Alma 6:1). These priests and teachers were not Melchizedek priests. Had everyone been fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, then these priests and teachers would have already had the Melchizedek priesthood, and there would be no need for a fore-ordained Melchizedek priest to ordain them by the laying on of hands.

Do I need to point out the non-sequitur, hinted at in bold, or will you kindly retract? The rest of your posts is irrelevant.

[Cobalt-70]

How do we know when Alma 13 was translated in relation to the appearance of John the Baptist. And, why does that matter?

Because Alma was relatively early in the translation process. After beginning translation with Cowdery in early April 1829, they started with the Book of Mosiah, went to the end, and then doubled-back to translate 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon, finishing up in late June or early July. The mid-point of the three-month translation process would have been around mid-May, which is when Smith and Cowdery were baptized. Textually, the mid-point in the translation process would have been around 3 Nephi, and that is where (3 Ne. 11:23) the book contains specific instructions on baptism and a focus on going forth and baptizing people. Alma 13 would probably have been translated in the mid-April.

The dating is important because the idea that visions of angels are required in order establish a line of priesthood authority was not part of Mormonism when Alma 13 was translated.

Part of the problem may arise with a misunderstanding of what foreordination is. In your post that I initially responded to, you wrote, ". . .foreordained these people with the Melchizedek priesthood. . . " That is incorrect. No one was foreordained with the Melchezidek Priesthood. They were foreordained to receive the Melchezidek Priesthood in mortality. Foreordination is a promise of a future event, i.e. ordination in mortality.

Lehi, Nephi, Alma, and all others had to have the ordination performed in mortality in order to act irrespective of any foreordination in the preexistence.

That's the modern spin on Alma 13. But that's not what Alma 13 says. After calling the reader's attention to the fact that "the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order" (v. 1), It says that "this is the manner after which they were ordained" (v. 3), and then the only "manner" that is described is that they were fore-ordained.

The Alma 13 fore-ordination model of priesthood is quite consistent with early revelations in the D&C. The earliest Mormon priests were called directly through written revelation confirming their "calling," rather than by the laying on of hands. (See, e.g., D&C 4, 6, 11-12, and 14-16).

It is also consistent with JST Genesis 14:29 (translated in 1831, probably), which says that the Melchizedek priesthood "was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name."

Edited May 2, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Do I need to point out the non-sequitur, hinted at in bold, or will you kindly retract? The rest of your posts is irrelevant.

Why hint? Why not spell it out, if you think my statement was a non-sequitur?

[Log]

Why hint? Why not spell it out, if you think my statement was a non-sequitur?

Being fore-ordained to receive something is not the same as receiving that something.

[mfbukowski]

As to the Initiatory argument, the washing and anointing ceremony says nothing about fore-ordination.

You are missing the point.

Suppose the words of the initiatory ordinances were pronounced in the pre-existence, which is where they arguably occur symbolically.

As in all symbolism, there are at least two levels of understanding going on here, and you are only seeing one.

[mfbukowski]

Being fore-ordained to receive something is not the same as receiving that something.

One would think that would go without saying, but on the other hand....

Edited May 2, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

Being fore-ordained to receive something is not the same as receiving that something.

Alma 13 says they were fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood, not fore-ordained to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

You are missing the point.

Suppose the words of the initiatory ordinances were pronounced in the pre-existence, which is where they arguably occur symbolically.

As in all symbolism, there are at least two levels of understanding going on here, and you are only seeing one.

The washing and anointing does not, symbolically, take place in the pre-existence. Following the washing and anointing is the receiving of the garment and the new name, and all four of these initiatory rituals relate to particular times that occur chronologically during the Endowment ceremony. (For example, the garment relates to when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, etc.). These parts of the ceremony are evidently performed first only as a matter of convenience.

[wenglund]

No. If you went to your Stake President and claimed that you had been fore-ordained as a High Priest, and therefore was a High Priest, because your priesthood was without beginning of days or end of years, I don't think he'd buy that.

I don't see how that is any different from ancient times. As I understand things, the pattern has always been to bind on earth that which was bound in heaven, and vice versa.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-