Adam And The Priesthood

[wenglund]

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

For that matter, might not the initiatory work, itself, be considered a fore-ordination on earth for what will happen in the hereafter? The words "to become" come to mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

For that matter, might not the initiatory work, itself, be considered a fore-ordination on earth for what will happen in the hereafter? The words "to become" come to mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure- that works for me too. Most symbols AND prophecies work on more than one level

There are many references to being "clothed" in a "fleshly garment" meaning "to take on a body".

For example in John where it says that "The word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us" the Greek actually says "tented" for what is translated "dwelt" meaning the taking on of a fleshy "tabernacle".

Aren't our spirits right now "clothed in garments of skins"?

Tabernacles are tent like structures. Further in the Hymn of the Pearl, a gnostic text, it clearly speaks about a spirit taking on a "robe" of flesh.

Incidentally, did you ever think about what name we had in the pre-existence, and when we got it?

And arguably the "fall" does not happen until Adam and Eve are actually cast from the garden.

Edited May 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Uh, yeah, sure. Uh huh.

You should think that through a bit. But if you want to take it only literally knock yourself out. Some later.....developments..... can be seen in another way.

[David T]

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.

While I don't think it's fair to say that can't be one meaning taken from the ritual, I will say that the Live Endowment, such as that seen in Salt Lake Temple, does support the parallel-events view, with the actions accompanying Adam's bodily creation and insertion of his spirit being direct replications of the actions accompanying the Washing and Anointing ceremonies. This parallelism is completely lost in the filmed versions.

Edited May 3, 2012 by David T

[Log]

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

A distinction which makes, literally, no difference.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Log

[David T]

A distinction which makes, literally, no difference.

Actually, it does, from one way of thinking. One view was that a physical ordination needed to take place to fulfill the 'promise' of ordination. Another was that the Spirit need only ratify the ordination that had already taken place in the mind of God, before the creation.

The Book of Mormon shows no awareness of a personal, physical pre-mortal life. The view was that individuals who would be created were pre-known by God, and came forth by his power. The personage of The Son of God was a very, very unique departure from this.

Thus, my understanding in how this is presented, in the context of the Book of Mormon, in his pre-creation of individuals, they would, in God's mind, already be (pre) ordained, subject to spiritual ratification.

This is similar to the belief of several of the early Kirtland saints - who had read the Book of Mormon, and were informed by it - who sought (and claimed) possession of parchment from heaven with their spiritual fore-ordinations written and declared on it, as a means to claim it.

Edited May 3, 2012 by David T

[mfbukowski]

This is similar to the belief of several of the early Kirtland saints - who had read the Book of Mormon, and were informed by it - who sought (and claimed) possession of parchment from heaven with their spiritual fore-ordinations written and declared on it, as a means to claim it.

Sounds like a patriarchal blessing to me.

[mfbukowski]

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.

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."

Were we actually ordained in the pre-existence there would be no need to do it here and no need for temple ordinances- indeed no need for ordinances at all.

On that logic we should just throw out all laying on of hands, all doctrine that such ordinances must be done "in the body", the whole reason for the return of Elijah to pass on keys and since we are throwing out the ordinances, of course there is no need for the temple either. After all, we got all those ordinations in the pre-existence so who needs to worry about it?

Better yet, we can all just become Unitarian Universalist Presbyterians God took care of it all so we don't need a savior, there is no sin or repentance and nothing we do here makes a difference any way. After all, it is all fore-ordained.

Edited May 3, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Looks like a lot of speculation on your part. But still don't see that it matters.

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.

When the Book of Mormons says "the Lord God ordained priests", do you read that mean the actual physical act of ordination was performed by the Lord? With regard to Adam, that is likely the case, but afterwards, the Lord ordained priests through His proxies on earth.

Anyway, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this. The order of the Priesthood has been revealed, the method of ordinantion set, and thngs are working just fine in the Chuch. If you think we have it wrong, take it up with the Lord.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

It's not a question of whether or not the Melchizedek priests of Alma 13 were sealed with power both on heaven and earth, but a question of who did the sealing. Alma 13, and JST Genesis says that it was God who did that directly by his own voice, having anticipated through his foreknowledge that the Melchizedek priest would be exceedingly faithful. Thus, the person's Melchizedek priesthood was without beginning or end, and came from no man, but directly from God.

[Log]

Alma 13, and JST Genesis says that it was God who did that directly by his own voice, having anticipated through his foreknowledge that the Melchizedek priest would be exceedingly faithful.

Begging the question with respect to Alma 13, and JST Genesis does not support your claim.

[Cobalt-70]

Uh, yeah, sure. Uh huh.

You should think that through a bit. But if you want to take it only literally knock yourself out. Some later.....developments..... can be seen in another way.

I'm familiar with the 2005 changes to the washing and anointing ceremonies, and there is nothing that was added or changed that promotes a view that we were washed and anointed in the pre-existence. In fact, it goes the opposite direction, given that there is now a reference to the washing anointing of Aaron in the temple of Jerusalem. Also, there's the idea that we become clean of the blood and sins of this generation. Such a cleansing is not necessary in the pre-existence, because there is no "generation" if nobody has been born. Plus, washing and anointing is a body-centric ritual. It doesn't make sense for it to be performed on a spirit.

[Cobalt-70]

Were we actually ordained in the pre-existence there would be no need to do it here and no need for temple ordinances- indeed no need for ordinances at all.

On that logic we should just throw out all laying on of hands, all doctrine that such ordinances must be done "in the body", the whole reason for the return of Elijah to pass on keys and since we are throwing out the ordinances, of course there is no need for the temple either. After all, we got all those ordinations in the pre-existence so who needs to worry about it?

Better yet, we can all just become Unitarian Universalist Presbyterians God took care of it all so we don't need a savior, there is no sin or repentance and nothing we do here makes a difference any way. After all, it is all fore-ordained.

I'm just describing Mormon doctrine circa April 1829, when Smith translated Alma 13. Obviously, the doctrine has changed since then, and nobody except Jesus is currently regarded as having been fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

[mfbukowski]

Also, there's the idea that we become clean of the blood and sins of this generation. Such a cleansing is not necessary in the pre-existence, because there is no "generation" if nobody has been born.

Next time, listen better.

[Cobalt-70]

When the Book of Mormons says "the Lord God ordained priests", do you read that mean the actual physical act of ordination was performed by the Lord? With regard to Adam, that is likely the case, but afterwards, the Lord ordained priests through His proxies on earth.

Anyway, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this. The order of the Priesthood has been revealed, the method of ordinantion set, and thngs are working just fine in the Chuch. If you think we have it wrong, take it up with the Lord.

I'm not saying that Alma 13 is right and the current church practice is wrong. I'm just saying that the Melchizedek priesthood doctrine has changed since Alma 13 was translated, and then modern LDS scholars have put a spin on Alma 13 that is a bit strained and alien to what Smith and the early readers of the Book of Mormon would have understood at the time.

[mfbukowski]

I'm just describing Mormon doctrine circa April 1829, when Smith translated Alma 13. Obviously, the doctrine has changed since then, and nobody except Jesus is currently regarded as having been fore-ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood.

There was no "Mormon Doctrine" then- it is arguable that there is none now. There was a partially translated BOM. The church did not yet even exist.

Indeed, at that point, we would could have been Universalist Presbyterians with half a book of Mormon. Your point is a whole non-sequitur.

It's like trying to guess what the world "was" before the Big Bang or something. Before something was something- it was nothing. There WAS no "church" to even HAVE doctrine

[Cobalt-70]

There was no "Mormon Doctrine" then- it is arguable that there is none now. There was a partially translated BOM. The church did not yet even exist.

Indeed, at that point, we would could have been Universalist Presbyterians with half a book of Mormon. Your point is a whole non-sequitur.

It's like trying to guess what the world "was" before the Big Bang or something. Before something was something- it was nothing. There WAS no "church" to even HAVE doctrine

There was Mormon doctrine, though Smith would not have called it that. The formation of the Church of Christ in April 1830 was just one step in the development of Mormonism. You don't have to have an institutional church to have doctrine. See D&C 10:67: "Behold this is my doctrine--whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church"--written before the Book of Mormon was translated, and two years before the formal institution of the Church of Christ in 1830. Obviously, the "church" referred to here is not an institutional church, but a body of believers.

As a point of order, though, no part of the Book of Mormon that I know of is consistent with universalism or Presbyterianism. The universalist and Calvinistic elements of Mormonism came later. The Book of Mormon is mostly Arminian, and specifically Wesleyan/Methodist.

[mfbukowski]

There was Mormon doctrine, though Smith would not have called it that.

So who am I to question Joseph Smith about it? This is just silly.

Besides that, the dating is controversial AND the Lord also says that he "WILL reveal his doctrine" in the same section.

But that was well before the press release, so who really knows.

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/324Folder/Dating%20D&C%2010%20Parkin.pdf

Edited May 3, 2012 by mfbukowski