Piercing The Veil

[CASteinman]

God's glory is his intelligence. Perhaps they should have just accepted it instead of putting up some kind of shield.

But they were told to do it.

[ANACO]

Quote from the article:

The one non-king who consecrates priests during our record of this period is Alma the Elder. Yet the text makes clear that Alma’s authority is derived from the king. Alma was made a priest by King Noah. And even as leader of the church in the land of Zarahemla Alma was “high priest” in the sense of being a higher priest than those he presided over and not in the sense of being the highest priest among the Nephites. His authority derived from the still greater authority of Mosiah, as explained to us in Mosiah 26:8: “Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.” Whereas Alma’s authority was derivative, Mosiah’s was intrinsic. He was the high priest.

Analyzing the Nephite priesthood structure reveals the king to stand in its highest position, and thus to be the High Priest. The king’s position as high priest is also revealed by his role in the king’s position in the Nephite priesthood structure reveals him

I take issue with what I bolded above.

Alma's priesthood authority was not given to him by the King, but by the High Priest acting as the King.

Omni 1:19 states that Mosiah was appointed the King by the united people of Nephi and of Zarahemla:

"19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did ^aunite together; and ^bMosiah was appointed to be their king."

Priesthood positions were not made by appointment of the people. Their rulers were. It's clear the people wanted their Priesthood Leader, Mosiah, to be their King and Ruler (similar to Nephi being appointed). It's clear Mosiah was the High Priest long before he was made to be their King. It was Mosiah who was commanded of the Lord to lead the Nephites out of the Land of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla. They were at the time righteous Nephites who had followed their Priesthood Leader. Some Nephites stayed behind, presumably, and did not follow Mosiah to Zarahemla (Omni 1:13). So why wouldn't a group of righteous Nephites appoint their Priesthood Leader to be their King?

Therefore, Alma the Elder's Priesthood Authority was not derived from the King, but from the High Priest who at the time was also their King.

Also, Alma the Elder, could have received the priesthood, not from King Noah, but from a priesthood holder before Noah was made king. Alma was just deceived, temporarily, until the Prophet Abinidai corrected him.

As regarding any Levitical Priesthood, why could not Zoram, servant of Laban, had held the Levitical Priesthood? Laban was a descendant of Joseph, but could his servants have been Levitical priests?

1 Nephi 5:16 implies the descendants of Joseph kept the records. So Zoram being a Levite, may not be the case.

Edited August 8, 2012 by ANACO

[volgadon]

animal skins = our bodies (being born) = temple = transmission of God's power and authority

I had a slightly different thought, based on the short work called Sefer Ha-Malbush (The Book of the Garment). After the usual preparations for holiness- fasting, sexual abstinence, ritual purity, specially prepared food and alms for the poor- one would inscribe the name of God on a mantle and hood made of deerskin, then step into water before donning the name. which gave power, protection and control over angels. The use of skins to handle the holy is interesting, as is the place wherein the ritual takes place: water. Just as the temple was the meeting place of heaven and earth, water was also seen as filling such a role, a part of the "lightworld," to borrow a Mandaean phrase.

[volgadon]

Or were did it signal a restoration of power to a decadent [Nephite] kingly line, empowering its scion to lead the new exodus in power, rather than skulking away as did the later two groups of Zeniffite refugees from Lamanite oppression?

We may never know, but I favour this reading.

[volgadon]

I take issue with what I bolded above.

Alma's priesthood authority was not given to him by the King, but by the High Priest acting as the King.

Omni 1:19 states that Mosiah was appointed the King by the united people of Nephi and of Zarahemla:

"19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did ^aunite together; and ^bMosiah was appointed to be their king."

Priesthood positions were not made by appointment of the people. Their rulers were. It's clear the people wanted their Priesthood Leader, Mosiah, to be their King and Ruler (similar to Nephi being appointed). It's clear Mosiah was the High Priest long before he was made to be their King. It was Mosiah who was commanded of the Lord to lead the Nephites out of the Land of Nephi to the Land of Zarahemla. They were at the time righteous Nephites who had followed their Priesthood Leader. Some Nephites stayed behind, presumably, and did not follow Mosiah to Zarahemla (Omni 1:13). So why wouldn't a group of righteous Nephites appoint their Priesthood Leader to be their King?

Zarahemla was a different socio-political entity which united with the people of Mosiah, accepting Mosiah as the ruler of both groups.

[DonBradley]

Hi All,

I'm glad to see my thoughts from the conference have sparked others thinking as well.

I think there is a connection between Aminadi and King Mosiah I, with Aminadi having been in some way a forerunner to Mosiah I. I'm still working on that, and such narrative models are made to be improved on. So, I hope others will also work on these problems, including critiquing, building on, and even departing from what I piece together in my book.

The relationship of the offices of prophet, priest, and king among the Nephites is also a fascinating one. In my book present both what I did at the conference and a further case that the offices of king and high priest were joined in one man until the reign of the judges, with the royal/high priestly relics having been the exact same set, vested in one and the same man. (Note that this coincides well also with the early Israelite temple cult, in which the king was arguably higher than the nominal high priest and was regarded as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.)

Regarding Zoram, I see nothing indicating that he was of the tribe of Levi, nor any indication that he or his descendants acted in a priestly role, nor any indication that there were Levites among the Lehites. From the beginning Lehi himself performs sacrifices, indicating that he and his people were not reliant on the levitical system. And, rather than indication that Zoram was a descendant of Levi, I have a (heretofore unused) source tracing his lineage to another tribe and giving the lost pages as the source for this information.

I'll have much more to present on these issues, which, though I don't expect it to settle all of them, will hopefully help us to pursue them in a more systematic and informed way. The information we can find and piece together about early Nephite history and worship during the "lost pages" period will provide quite a bit of grist for the mill as we continue to figure things out.

Don

[Ahab]

But they were told to do it.

I was just wondering what would have happened if they didn't look into the hat, or the skins. It was probably to make it easier to see the light, since it's easier to see light in darkness, but since God's light is his intelligence I would think anyone would be able to see it if they were just paying attention and could feel the spirit of truth bear witness to what was revealed.

Or maybe the revelations appeared with some actual light, in actual darkness? I suppose they probably did, huh, since they were actually looking into something and cutting themselves off from some actual light.

Glow in the dark revelations from seer stones enlightened by God. Fascinating,isn't it.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Ahab

[ANACO]

Hi All,

I'm glad to see my thoughts from the conference have sparked others thinking as well.

I think there is a connection between Aminadi and King Mosiah I, with Aminadi having been in some way a forerunner to Mosiah I. I'm still working on that, and such narrative models are made to be improved on. So, I hope others will also work on these problems, including critiquing, building on, and even departing from what I piece together in my book.

The relationship of the offices of prophet, priest, and king among the Nephites is also a fascinating one. In my book present both what I did at the conference and a further case that the offices of king and high priest were joined in one man until the reign of the judges, with the royal/high priestly relics having been the exact same set, vested in one and the same man. (Note that this coincides well also with the early Israelite temple cult, in which the king was arguably higher than the nominal high priest and was regarded as a priest after the order of Melchizedek.)

Regarding Zoram, I see nothing indicating that he was of the tribe of Levi, nor any indication that he or his descendants acted in a priestly role, nor any indication that there were Levites among the Lehites. From the beginning Lehi himself performs sacrifices, indicating that he and his people were not reliant on the levitical system. And, rather than indication that Zoram was a descendant of Levi, I have a (heretofore unused) source tracing his lineage to another tribe and giving the lost pages as the source for this information.

I'll have much more to present on these issues, which, though I don't expect it to settle all of them, will hopefully help us to pursue them in a more systematic and informed way. The information we can find and piece together about early Nephite history and worship during the "lost pages" period will provide quite a bit of grist for the mill as we continue to figure things out.

Don

Hi, you asked for critique.

You mentioned: "the offices of king and high priest were joined in one man until the reign of the judges"

This would be contrary to the order of the priesthood. And since the priesthood doth not vary, but is Eternal, your statement presumes all the Kings during the reign of the Kings, were righteous.

Jacob 1:11 indicates the Kings were appointed by the people - as Nephi and Mosiah 1 were. If so, this would not give the King any priesthood authority.

Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would.

Nephi appointed a man to be his successor as King. There is no indication this second King was annointed as a High Priest. The footnote for "annointed" refers to the OT when Kings were annointed by the Prophet, not that they became the Prophet or presiding High Priest.

Jacob 1: 9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon ^adie; wherefore, he ^banointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the ^ckings.

Jacob 1:16 At this same time, Jacob wrote that he and his brother Joseph were consecrated as priests and teachers by their older brother Nephi - and that Jacob taught the people in the Temple.

Thus we see at the outset, at the death of their first King, Nephi, a separation between the King and Priesthood Leaders.

Years later, Jarom 1:7 also indicates a distinction between the Nephite Kings and their priesthood leaders.

But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord; wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites ....

And as you know, the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood is part of or an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood and can only be conferred by one in authority holding the Melchizedek priesthood. We know this through modern-day revelation. (D&C 10.) If there were no descendants of Levi among the Nephites, then a Nephite could have had the lesser or Aaronic priesthood conferred upon him.

This and Jacob and Joseph being consecrated as Priests and Teachers and teaching in the Temple, 55 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (verse 1), could indicate the Levitical Priesthood was had among the Nephites.

This could be the reason why the Lord had the words of the OT Prophet Malachi given to the Nephites (3 Nephi 24). Because the Nephites did not have descendants of the tribe of Levi among them, (but they obviously knew of that tribe from the Plates of Brass). But this would not prevent the Aaronic priesthood to be conferred upon a Nephite, anymore than preventing the Aaronic Priesthood having been conferred upon the members of the tribe of Ephraim, Manasseh, etc., in the LDS Church.

Respectfully

Edited August 8, 2012 by ANACO

[volgadon]

Hi, you asked for critique.

You mentioned: "the offices of king and high priest were joined in one man until the reign of the judges"

This would be contrary to the order of the priesthood. And since the priesthood doth not vary, but is Eternal, your statement presumes all the Kings during the reign of the Kings, were righteous.

I would recommend this. http://calba-savua.blogspot.com/2011/01/prophetic-high-priest.html Certain powers and duties were considered either hereditary or part of the office, so a high priest could have been unrighteous, yet still officiate in or preside over certain duties.

[volgadon]

Jacob 1:11 indicates the Kings were appointed by the people - as Nephi and Mosiah 1 were. If so, this would not give the King any priesthood authority.

Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would.

The people termed Nephi's successors Nephi II, III, IV, V, etc., even if their real names were, say, Yehoshua, Abiathar, Yehoshiyahu, Benayahu and Gedalyahu.

[ANACO]

The people termed Nephi's successors Nephi II, III, IV, V, etc., even if their real names were, say, Yehoshua, Abiathar, Yehoshiyahu, Benayahu and Gedalyahu.

I agree. . How about Janab Pakal, Butz'aj Sak Chihk, Ix Yohl Ik'nal and Kan Bahlam - assuming a Mesoamerica setting?

But they were approved of the people before being annointed the King, it appears. This doesn't indicate the King was always the presiding High Priest.

Mosiah I apparently was not their King, until after the Nephites arrived in Zarahemla - unless a revote was cast to include the People of Zarahemla.

regards

[volgadon]

I agree. . How about Janab Pakal, Butz'aj Sak Chihk, Ix Yohl Ik'nal and Kan Bahlam - assuming a Mesoamerica setting?

But they were approved of the people before being annointed the King, it appears. This doesn't indicate the King was always the presiding High Priest.

Mosiah I apparently was not their King, until after the Nephites arrived in Zarahemla - unless a revote was cast to include the People of Zarahemla.

regards

It means the people didn't revolt, and had their own way of refering to the kings. I really don't don't see how these verses help your point.

[firepatch36]

This is fascinating. I was looking forward to the bibliography to read up on what was discussed, but it was missing.

Here's the Ben McGuire article.

I think this is the Christensen article, but I haven't read through it yet to make sure it is.

[wenglund]

God's glory is his intelligence. Perhaps they should have just accepted it instead of putting up some kind of shield.

God's glory also consist of light, the brightness of which fallen man may be unable to bear.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I had a slightly different thought, based on the short work called Sefer Ha-Malbush (The Book of the Garment). After the usual preparations for holiness- fasting, sexual abstinence, ritual purity, specially prepared food and alms for the poor- one would inscribe the name of God on a mantle and hood made of deerskin, then step into water before donning the name. which gave power, protection and control over angels. The use of skins to handle the holy is interesting, as is the place wherein the ritual takes place: water. Just as the temple was the meeting place of heaven and earth, water was also seen as filling such a role, a part of the "lightworld," to borrow a Mandaean phrase.

Hmmmm...overtones of a certain modern coronation-like temple ritual, though water is substituted with oil.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For added perspective while waiting for Don's book, may I suggest his article on The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism..., where he touches further on the relationship between prophets, priests, and kings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

For added perspective while waiting for Don's book, may I suggest his article on The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism..., where he touches further on the relationship between prophets, priests, and kings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I second this recommendation.

[Avatar4321]

For added perspective while waiting for Don's book, may I suggest his article on The Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism..., where he touches further on the relationship between prophets, priests, and kings.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

An excellent read.

[volgadon]

Hmmmm...overtones of a certain modern coronation-like temple ritual, though water is substituted with oil.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The water functions there as a sacred, pure, and holy space separate from the rest of the world.

[USU78]

The water functions there as a sacred, pure, and holy space separate from the rest of the world.

Hence the mikveh.

And the late Mikie Jackson's sensory deprivation tank.

[volgadon]

Hence the mikveh.

And the late Mikie Jackson's sensory deprivation tank.

Almost thou persuadest me to be a pop star...

The (Sephardic) mikveh of R. Isaac Luria in Safed is considered of such holiness will heal the body and lengthen one's life. I didn't have time to try before I left, but then again, Safed is proverbial for its hagiographic fish tales.

[ANACO]

It means the people didn't revolt, and had their own way of refering to the kings. I really don't don't see how these verses help your point.

Again, these quotes from the article contradicts with the text of the Book of Mormon:

Yet the text makes clear that Alma’s authority is derived from the king.

And even as leader of the church in the land of Zarahemla Alma was “high priest” in the sense of being a higher priest than those he presided over and not in the sense of being the highest priest among the Nephites.

Analyzing the Nephite priesthood structure reveals the king to stand in its highest position, and thus to be the High Priest.

The king’s position as high priest is also revealed by his role in the king’s position in the Nephite priesthood structure reveals him.

Nephi (son of Lehi) was appointed by the people to be their King. Mosiah was appointed by the people. His son King Benjamin was appointed by the people. It's in his famous sermon:

But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and^aconsecrated by ^bmy father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.

With these verses in mind, one cannot claim that the High Priest of the Church, derived his authority from some alleged heretofore unknown Nephite priesthood office - "The High Priest of the Land" (The King).

The Nephite Kings were chosen by the people. This would presume that the Nephite Govt could control the head of the Church. Since the righteous were the majority, at that point in their history, they would naturally select the High Priest of the Church to be their King.

[David T]

Anaco,

All Israelite Kings were Messiahs - literally Anointed representatives on earth (you might say they were viewed as 'Avatars') of Yahweh. King-priests, "After the order of Melchizedek". They were understood as being chosen and anointed by God, but upheld, or confirmed, by the people.

The Aaronid tribal line was a distinct auxilliary to - and at times a bit of a political foil and competition to - the Kingly Priesthood.

Edited August 11, 2012 by David T

[DonBradley]

Hi, you asked for critique.

Hi ANACO,

I appreciate your willingness to chime in to, as you see it, set me straight in my interpretation of the Book of Mormon data on the Nephite priesthood order. Because I was only able to spend ten minutes or less on this subject in my FAIR presentation, you are starting at a disadvantage in offering such a critique, since you have only a brief oral overview of what will be covered in detail and with good documentation in my book. I'd encourage you to withhold final judgment until you're able to read my full case, rather than an inadequate abstract.

In either case, you've offered your critique of what I've presented thus far, and I'll make a direct, if unsystematic, response here. I'm open to a text-based case against my interpretation--and, indeed, I hope for just such refinements offered by others after I present the best I've been able to come up with.

But the critique above of my FAIR presentation arguments I find quite inadequate even to deal with those arguments, much less the ones I've not yet presented. As I read the texts you cite, I don't see even one of them saying what you assert it says.

I'll respond to these assertions and arguments in this message but don't plan to engage in sustained discussion of the issue here, now, since this would best be deferred till my arguments are laid out and documented in full, in the book. So, below is my response. Perhaps we can continue the discussion several months down the line?

You mentioned: "the offices of king and high priest were joined in one man until the reign of the judges"

This would be contrary to the order of the priesthood. And since the priesthood doth not vary, but is Eternal, your statement presumes all the Kings during the reign of the Kings, were righteous.

Two responses:

First, a little research into the history of the priesthood in this dispensation will show that its structure has varied quite a bit just during that time, much less across generations. It is groundless to argue that what clearly has varied cannot vary.

Second, the biblical high priests were sometimes wicked and punished by God. So the fact that some of the Nephite kings were wicked is irrelevant to knowing whether they functioned as the high priests.

Jacob 1:11 indicates the Kings were appointed by the people - as Nephi and Mosiah 1 were. If so, this would not give the King any priesthood authority.

Wherefore, the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name. And whoso should reign in his stead were called by the people, second Nephi, third Nephi, and so forth, according to the reigns of the kings; and thus they were called by the people, let them be of whatever name they would.

Nephi appointed a man to be his successor as King. There is no indication this second King was annointed as a High Priest.

??

The text you quote doesn't say the people chose the kings. It says the people called the kings by a certain title.

But suppose the people did choose who would be king. So what? What would matter is not whether they were chosen by common consent but whether they were anointed by someone with proper authority. Nephi's successor, however chosen, was anointed by Nephi--who plainly did have proper authority.

And recall that it was also Nephi who consecrated priests and teachers, including his brother Jacob. Thus Nephi was both king and presiding (i.e., high) priest. The offices were united in one person. Among the Nephites, the two functions went together: the king was the high priest.

Jacob 1: 9 Now Nephi began to be old, and he saw that he must soon ^adie; wherefore, he ^banointed a man to be a king and a ruler over his people now, according to the reigns of the ^ckings.

Jacob 1:16 At this same time, Jacob wrote that he and his brother Joseph were consecrated as priests and teachers by their older brother Nephi - and that Jacob taught the people in the Temple.

Thus we see at the outset, at the death of their first King, Nephi, a separation between the King and Priesthood Leaders.

Actually, what we "thus see" is that you've substituted "Priesthood Leaders" for "priests and teachers." Far from showing that the priesthood leader was distinct from the king, the fact that Nephi anoints a king and consecrates priests shows that the first Nephite king was also the first Nephite high priest. Nor is there any indication that Nephi gave the office of high priest to anyone but his anointed successor. Jacob was consecrated by Nephi to be "a priest," not a high priest.

Years later, Jarom 1:7 also indicates a distinction between the Nephite Kings and their priesthood leaders.

But our kings and our leaders were mighty men in the faith of the Lord; and they taught the people the ways of the Lord; wherefore, we withstood the Lamanites ....

Another eisegetical argument. It doesn't say "kings and high priests" or "kings and priesthood leaders," as you read into it. The text indicates only that the kings were not the only leaders who were mighty men of faith and taught the people the ways of the Lord.

Interestingly, the grammar of the statement indicates that the kings themselves "were mighty men in the faith of the Lord" who "taught the people the ways of the Lord," which attributes a religious function for the kings--precisely the function you would split off and assign to other, hypothetical leaders.

And as you know, the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood is part of or an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood and can only be conferred by one in authority holding the Melchizedek priesthood. We know this through modern-day revelation. (D&C 10.) If there were no descendants of Levi among the Nephites, then a Nephite could have had the lesser or Aaronic priesthood conferred upon him.

Under the Old Testament law, the Aaronic priesthood was limited to the descendants of Aaron.

And, not that this proves the point, but the idea that the Nephites had no Aaronic priesthood is hardly original to me. You'll find it in such radical and unorthodox sources as Joseph Fielding Smith's Answers to Gospel Questions.

This and Jacob and Joseph being consecrated as Priests and Teachers and teaching in the Temple, 55 years after Lehi left Jerusalem (verse 1), could indicate the Levitical Priesthood was had among the Nephites.

In the context of Old Testament times, it seems entirely ironic to speak of "Levitical" priesthood outside the line of Levi or "Aaronic" priesthood outside the line of Aaron.

Lehi--whom we know to have been of the tribe of Manasseh, not Levi-offered sacrifices upon leaving Jerusalem. He plainly did not do this by the "Levitical" priesthood, which means he did it he had and used the Melchizedek priesthood. Why, then, do we need to posit a distinct, yet counter-Mosaic Law, "Levitical" priesthood among the Nephites?

This could be the reason why the Lord had the words of the OT Prophet Malachi given to the Nephites (3 Nephi 24). Because the Nephites did not have descendants of the tribe of Levi among them, (but they obviously knew of that tribe from the Plates of Brass). But this would not prevent the Aaronic priesthood to be conferred upon a Nephite, anymore than preventing the Aaronic Priesthood having been conferred upon the members of the tribe of Ephraim, Manasseh, etc., in the LDS Church.

The trouble with this is that the Law of Moses was then still in force, and it was that law that established the Levitical priesthood as the prerogative of the tribe of Levi.

Aside from these responses, let me state a few positive points that will be discussed and documented in the book, and which you might want to explore more on your own before the book comes out:

1 - The very model for the Melchizedek priesthood--Melchizedek himself--was a king and a high priest. He was the king of Salem and offered sacrifices on behalf of Abraham, who tithed to him--indicating his high priestly status. Thus the idea of a combined office of priest-king is anything but unusual or controversial: it is the very model for "Melchizedek priesthood" and something that ought to be familiar to endowed members.

2 - The kings in ancient Israel had religious authority. It was Solomon who built the temple. David, Solomon, and other kings are described as performing sacrifices; and Psalm 110, used at a new king's coronation says the king was "a priest after the order of Melchizedek" (consistent with Melchizedek himself being a high priest-king). Indeed, the Davidic king was a mashiach, or anointed one--a type for the Messiah.

3 - Cutting edge biblical scholarship that is remarkably supportive of LDS beliefs (e.g., the work of Margaret Barker) suggests that the Israelite king was the true high priest, with the Aaronic "high priest" being under his authority and more of a figure head.

4 - The idea of the Nephite king being, consistent with the early Israelite model, the presiding priest has been argued at some length by Daniel C. Peterson in his piece "Authority in the Book of Mosiah."

5 - If this is not so--if the king was not a priesthood leader, then the authority of Alma the Elder must be understood to have come, not by ordination, but by the Holy Ghost falling upon him at the waters of Mormon. Alma's priestly ordination, or "consecration," had been done by King Noah. So, if this authority was not legitimate, then he was not an ordained priest. That would be contrary to the known order of the priesthood. And when Alma prays at the water's edge, he doesn't pray for authority, but only that he might do the work of baptism "with holiness of heart," implying that authority was something he already possessed. (Here, then, would be an example of a wicked king being a conduit of priesthood nonetheless. Noah had been consecrated by Zeniff; and Zeniff, as the founder of a colony, would have received authority from King Mosiah I before leaving the land of Zarahemla).

6 - The authority of high priest does not appear to have passed through Jacob's line with the small plates, and if you posit that it did, your arguments above will refute you. Jacob's heirs in this line were not all righteous. A few of them deny having any revelations, and one outright confesses to being a wicked man. Thus, if the high priests (contrary to the biblical example, but as you argue above) had to be righteous, these guys can't have been the high priests. It's also noteworthy that none of these men mention their roles as the Nephites' religious leaders. And, finally, when the interpreters--the Nephite version of the Urim and Thummim--a high priestly relic--come into Nephite hands, they don't come to Jacob's heirs, who are still the keepers of the small plates; rather, they come to Mosiah I.

7 - During the reigns of the kings, it is always, with one telling exception, who consecrate priests. The exception is Alma I, who had himself been consecrated by a king and who, once back in proximity to a king, explicitly does so under the king's authority.

8 - That the Nephites were used to having the offices of supreme political leader and high priest concentrated in the same man is evident from their behavior at the end of the reign of the kings. Here, at the opening of the reign of the judges, when church and state are formally separated, the offices of chief judge and high priest are still initially concentrated in the hands of one man. And it is only because that man yields the former office that they come to be held by separate persons.

In sum, the Nephite kings portrayed in the available text of the Book of Mormon had decidedly religious, as well as political, functions and stood above (and hence chose and consecrated) the other priests, making them in practice the high priests. This Nephite combination of kingly and priestly offices and their acceptance of the king as priesthood leader are thoroughly Israelite and reflect the nature of "Melchizedek" priesthood as demonstrated by Melchizedek himself. Far from flouting the Bible, they demonstrate an understanding of ancient Israelite religion that biblical scholars are only now finding in the Bible's earliest layers. The Nephite priesthood order, as conveyed to us in the Book of Mormon, evidences its antiquity and legitimacy.

I'll document the points above in the book and also lay out additional arguments (e.g., the relics of the king and the relics of the high priest being identical, suggesting the identity also of king and high priest).

While I may respond to a few further points raised in this dialogue here, I will largely concentrate instead on laying them out fully in the book, after which those who disagree will have the advantage of being able to critique the full case rather than bits and pieces from a 40 minute presentation or a couple message board posts.

Don

[DonBradley]

Again, these quotes from the article contradicts with the text of the Book of Mormon:

Nephi (son of Lehi) was appointed by the people to be their King. Mosiah was appointed by the people. His son King Benjamin was appointed by the people. It's in his famous sermon:

With these verses in mind, one cannot claim that the High Priest of the Church, derived his authority from some alleged heretofore unknown Nephite priesthood office - "The High Priest of the Land" (The King).

The Nephite Kings were chosen by the people. This would presume that the Nephite Govt could control the head of the Church. Since the righteous were the majority, at that point in their history, they would naturally select the High Priest of the Church to be their King.

This again confuses the operation of common consent among the people in the selection of their king with the king's reception of regal authority by consecration from the previous king. While Benjamin was either selected or affirmed by the people as the proper choice for the office of king, he received the actual office from one who held the authority of that office: "I have been...consecrated by my father."

Also, you're making too much of the people's reported role in "choosing" the king. The appointment of King Mosiah II is a good example. Benjamin didn't ask the people for a vote on who should be king. Rather, he "declared" to them that his son Mosiah was now their king, and they assented to this. It was in that sense, the sense of consent to the previous king's choice, that the people "chose" Mosiah II as their king. Yet, really, Mosiah II was chosen by Benjamin, under inspiration and by primogeniture, and consecrated by Benjamin, with the people having only an after-the-fact role. The new king was made king on the authority of the reigning king.

Don