Did Moses Restrict The Aaronic Preisthood To Aarons Descendants And Was That Policy Or Doctrine?

[dougtheavenger]

In Biblical times, only literal descendants of Aaron could hold the Aaronic preisthood. Jews, who are the only religious group besides Mormons who lay claim to the Aaronic preisthood, still honor this lineage requirement. The Coen brothers who made "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", "Fargo" and other fine movies are eligible the hold the preisthood of Aaron according to Jewish tradition. Most Jews are not eligible.

 

I have noted and wondered that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry were ordained to the Aaronic preisthood without explanation even though neither was a literal descendant of Aaron. Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

Edited December 13, 2013 by dougtheavenger

[Ahab]

Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

Yes.  Those who hold the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood can decide if and when to give a man priesthood authority in either the Aaronic or Melchizedek order of priesthood, just as when Moses did when he restricted the Aaronic order to only the descendents of Aaron.

[janderich]

I have noted and wondered that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry were ordained to the Aaronic preisthood without explanation even though neither was a literal descendant of Aaron. Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

Christ is the only one able to lay restrictions on priesthood. He did so with the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods. John was the last literal descendent to receive the Aaronic Priesthood after which the Lord removed the restriction. He says, "And the lesser priesthood continued, ...until John, whom God raised up being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" (D&C 84:27, italics added).  Man only administers the forms by which priesthood holders are recognized.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In Biblical times, only literal descendants of Aaron could hold the Aaronic preisthood. Jews, who are the only religious group besides Mormons who lay claim to the Aaronic preisthood, still honor this lineage requirement. The Coen brothers who made "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", "Fargo" and other fine movies are eligible the hold the preisthood of Aaron according to Jewish tradition. Most Jews are not eligible.

 

I have noted and wondered that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry were ordained to the Aaronic preisthood without explanation even though neither was a literal descendant of Aaron. Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

Levi's descendants.

[canard78]

Christ is the only one able to lay restrictions on priesthood. He did so with the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods. John was the last literal descendent to receive the Aaronic Priesthood after which the Lord removed the restriction. He says, "And the lesser priesthood continued, ...until John, whom God raised up being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" (D&C 84:27, italics added). Man only administers the forms by which priesthood holders are recognized.

So where did Alma get his priesthood? They were not Levites. I think Abinadi even speaks of the high priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

dougtheavenger said:

In Biblical times, only literal descendants of Aaron could hold the Aaronic preisthood. Jews, who are the only religious group besides Mormons who lay claim to the Aaronic preisthood, still honor this lineage requirement. The Coen brothers who made "Oh Brother Where Art Thou", "Fargo" and other fine movies are eligible the hold the preisthood of Aaron according to Jewish tradition. Most Jews are not eligible.

 

I have noted and wondered that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry were ordained to the Aaronic preisthood without explanation even though neither was a literal descendant of Aaron. Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

Christ is the only one able to lay restrictions on priesthood. He did so with the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods. John was the last literal descendent to receive the Aaronic Priesthood after which the Lord removed the restriction. He says, "And the lesser priesthood continued, ...until John, whom God raised up being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" (D&C 84:27, italics added).  Man only administers the forms by which priesthood holders are recognized.

The term "Jews" is often used as a generic designation for all Israelites of whatever kind, particularly those we know as such in modern times.  However, in precise terms it only designates descendants of Judah.  Descendants of Levi are the holders of the priesthood who serve the other tribes of Israel (nowadays the Jews):  Those priests are of two types, the descendants of Aaron who are the primary priests (kohens), and the others of the tribe of Levi who are their assistants (Levites).  They keep careful track of their genealogies, with authority passed from father to son, and are recognized as such by rabbinic law -- still performing some priestly functions within Judaism.

 

The Bible recognizes priesthood as being legitimately held by others than the tribes of Israel, namely people like Moses' father-in-law Jethro (high priest of Midian), Melchizedek, and even Joseph's father-in-law, the High Priest of Heliopolis in Egypt (kohen).  The late Frank Moore Cross dealt with some of that issue in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard, 1997).

 

However, for our purposes it is important to note that LDS doctrine officially recognizes that lineal descent of the priesthood of Aaron (D&C 68:15-20, 107:13-17,69-76), and that this also means that it did not cease with John the Baptizer (kohen).  Even Jesus recognized the power of the High Priest in his day (Matt 8:4, 26:63-64, John 11:49-52).  Moreover, that same priestly tribe will offer sacrifices at a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple in the latter days (Malachi 3:3).

[janderich]

So where did Alma get his priesthood? They were not Levites. I think Abinadi even speaks of the high priesthood.

From God of course, "And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests" (Mosiah 18:18). Now, no one knows the exact manner in which it was received but the scripture is otherwise clear.

 

By my previous statement I do not mean to imply that no one could receive the priesthood but the sons of Aaron. Rather that the Lord ultimately defines who has priesthood and who does not. 

[janderich]

The term "Jews" is often used as a generic designation for all Israelites of whatever kind, particularly those we know as such in modern times.  However, in precise terms it only designates descendants of Judah.  Descendants of Levi are the holders of the priesthood who serve the other tribes of Israel (nowadays the Jews):  Those priests are of two types, the descendants of Aaron who are the primary priests (kohens), and the others of the tribe of Levi who are their assistants (Levites).  They keep careful track of their genealogies, with authority passed from father to son, and are recognized as such by rabbinic law -- still performing some priestly functions within Judaism.

 

The Bible recognizes priesthood as being legitimately held by others than the tribes of Israel, namely people like Moses' father-in-law Jethro (high priest of Midian), Melchizedek, and even Joseph's father-in-law, the High Priest of Heliopolis in Egypt (kohen).  The late Frank Moore Cross dealt with some of that issue in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard, 1997).

 

However, for our purposes it is important to note that LDS doctrine officially recognizes that lineal descent of the priesthood of Aaron (D&C 68:15-20, 107:13-17,69-76), and that this also means that it did not cease with John the Baptizer (kohen).  Even Jesus recognized the power of the High Priest in his day (Matt 8:4, 26:63-64, John 11:49-52).  Moreover, that same priestly tribe will offer sacrifices at a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple in the latter days (Malachi 3:3).

I do not doubt that one day the descendants of Aaron will again exercise the priesthood and obtain their place in the kingdom. But in Jesus' day it ended with John and has not returned to them as a whole.

 

The High Priests in Jesus' day were not called of God. Nor did Jesus recognize them as such. Yes he may have in some instances accepted their man made authority but this is clearly not authority of the priesthood. Jesus says, "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). If the Jews had the authority then why did Jesus travel out in the wilderness to find John? Why didn't he go to the rulers? Jesus was baptized of John because he had the authority and not the Jews. Joseph Smith said: 

 

The priesthood was given to Aaron and his posterity throughout all generations. We can trace the linage down to Zachariah he being the only lawful administrator in his day and the Jews knew it well for they always acknowledge the priesthood. And Zachariah having no children, knew that the promise of God must fail, consequently he went into the Temple to wrestle with God according to the order of the priesthood to obtain a promise of a son, and when the angel told him that his promise was granted he, because of unbelief, was struck dumb. And when the set time was come John came forth and when he took up his priesthood, he came bounding out of the wilderness saying repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. He having received the holy anointing was the only lawful administrator and the Jews all knew it for the law and prophets was until John. Since then the kingdom of heaven is preached and all men press to it! Why! Why John? Because John was the only lawful administrator and they the Jews well knew it. Consequently the only alternative was for them to yield obedience to mandates of this wild man of the woods, namely John or be damned. For all Jerusalem and all Judea came out to be baptized of John, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, &c. (Joseph Smith July 23, 1843, see the Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith, spelling and punctuation modernized)

 

Joseph also said, "he [John] had his authority from God, and the oracles of God were with him, and the kingdom of God for a season seemed to rest with John alone" (TPJS p272, italics added).

[DBMormon]

based on recent discussion on the race issue is there a difference between Doctrine and policy and if so What do you mean by Doctrine and by policy? 

Edited December 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[canard78]

From God of course, "And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests" (Mosiah 18:18). Now, no one knows the exact manner in which it was received but the scripture is otherwise clear.

 

By my previous statement I do not mean to imply that no one could receive the priesthood but the sons of Aaron. Rather that the Lord ultimately defines who has priesthood and who does not. 

 

But it also says they observed the Law of Moses. Isn't the Levite priesthood a part of that? Odd that the Law of Moses gets little more than lip service in the Book of Mormon. It says they live it, there's just very little evidence of that.

[volgadon]

But it also says they observed the Law of Moses. Isn't the Levite priesthood a part of that? Odd that the Law of Moses gets little more than lip service in the Book of Mormon. It says they live it, there's just very little evidence of that.

 

There is, but one also needs to know what to look for. Someone here a few months ago suggested that the lack of Torah scroll artefacts found in the Americas was a strike against the BoM until I showed that what one commonly would associate with Torah scroll accoutrements and decorations were by and large medieval innovations. That is but one example of a false expectation. As far as lip service goes, quite a bit of the Bible is full of that until one glances deeper.

[The Nehor]

 Are the holders of certain keys authorized to impose a lineage requirement on the preisthood as they see fit and ignore past restrictions also as they see fit?

 

No.

 

God has to tell them. If they do as they "see fit" they are under the condemnation of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

I do not doubt that one day the descendants of Aaron will again exercise the priesthood and obtain their place in the kingdom. But in Jesus' day it ended with John and has not returned to them as a whole.

You might have tried reading the quotations I cited, which have the High Priest prophesying, which have Jesus sending people to the priests, and which have Jesus obeying the official demand of the HP.  You also apparently cannot understand the official LDS position on the lineal descendants of Aaron as contained in the D&C.

 

The High Priests in Jesus' day were not called of God. Nor did Jesus recognize them as such. Yes he may have in some instances accepted their man made authority but this is clearly not authority of the priesthood. Jesus says, "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it" (Luke 16:16). If the Jews had the authority then why did Jesus travel out in the wilderness to find John? Why didn't he go to the rulers? Jesus was baptized of John because he had the authority and not the Jews. Joseph Smith said: 

 

Joseph also said, "he [John] had his authority from God, and the oracles of God were with him, and the kingdom of God for a season seemed to rest with John alone" (TPJS p272, italics added).

Jesus traveled down to the Jordan River to be baptized by John because John was a prophet of God who had been assigned as Jesus' forerunner.  John was also a kohen (priest), son of the Priest Zachariah -- who received the angelic vision inside the Temple (Lk 1:5-20).  After his baptism, Jesus taught frequently at the Temple, and was observant of regular Jewish rites -- including Passover, in which he was the very paschal lamb given as a sacrifice by his Father.  You could even say that the High Priest sacrificed Jesus, and that same HP even stated the actual reason for the sacrifice (Jn 11:50 Caiaphas said: "it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"; 11:51 "being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation").  How did all that get past you?  Do you even bother to read the New Testament?

 

If so, you might try reading again Paul in Romans 11.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

But it also says they observed the Law of Moses. Isn't the Levite priesthood a part of that? Odd that the Law of Moses gets little more than lip service in the Book of Mormon. It says they live it, there's just very little evidence of that.

I tried pointing out above that we have plenty of non-Israelite priesthood in the Bible.  Priests are required, yes, and there are non-Levitical priests in the Book of Mormon (Jacob being the first to be mentioned, and he is a Manassite).  So what is the problem?  I just don't see it.  Here's what I said above:

 

"The Bible recognizes priesthood as being legitimately held by others than the tribes of Israel, namely people like Moses' father-in-law Jethro (high priest of Midian), Melchizedek, and even Joseph's father-in-law, the High Priest of Heliopolis in Egypt (kohen).  The late Frank Moore Cross dealt with some of that issue in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel(Harvard, 1997)."

[Abulafia]

Robert, just a point to add in, is that many scholars believe that Luke, who was the only author to connect John with the Aaronic lineage, was creating the story.

The earlier accounts do not assign a priesthood to John. Vermes covers this.

[janderich]

You might have tried reading the quotations I cited, which have the High Priest prophesying, which have Jesus sending people to the priests, and which have Jesus obeying the official demand of the HP.  You also apparently cannot understand the official LDS position on the lineal descendants of Aaron as contained in the D&C.

 

Jesus traveled down to the Jordan River to be baptized by John because John was a prophet of God who had been assigned as Jesus' forerunner.  John was also a kohen (priest), son of the Priest Zachariah -- who received the angelic vision inside the Temple (Lk 1:5-20).  After his baptism, Jesus taught frequently at the Temple, and was observant of regular Jewish rites -- including Passover, in which he was the very paschal lamb given as a sacrifice by his Father.  You could even say that the High Priest sacrificed Jesus, and that same HP even stated the actual reason for the sacrifice (Jn 11:50 Caiaphas said: "it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"; 11:51 "being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation").  How did all that get past you?  Do you even bother to read the New Testament?

 

If so, you might try reading again Paul in Romans 11.

Hi Robert, I did read the scriptures but simply disagree regarding some points you made.

[theplains]

However, for our purposes it is important to note that LDS doctrine officially recognizes that lineal descent of the priesthood of Aaron (D&C 68:15-20, 107:13-17,69-76), and that this also means that it did not cease with John the Baptizer (kohen).

 

The Aaronic priesthood ceased with the animal sacrifices.  From what I understand of LDS

theology, males can hold the Aaronic priesthood regardless of whether they are literal

lineal descendants or not.  As 68:19 says, even a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood

"may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found".

But if he is a literal descendant, he must also be the firstborn (68:18).

 

 

Even Jesus recognized the power of the High Priest in his day (Matt 8:4, 26:63-64, John 11:49-52).

 

There was only one High Priest at a time in the Old Testament. When he died or

relinquished his position, a new one would take his place. But in the LDS Church, you

have multiple High Priests.  Even the Book of Mormon author makes the mistake of not

understanding this (Alma 46:6, 38).

 

 

Moreover, that same priestly tribe will offer sacrifices at a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple in the latter days (Malachi 3:3).

 

I looked at that verse and it does not mention what you said.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Palerider]

The Aaronic priesthood ceased with the animal sacrifices.  From what I understand of LDS

theology, males can hold the Aaronic priesthood regardless of whether they are literal

lineal descendants or not.  As 68:19 says, even a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood

"may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found".

But if he is a literal descendant, he must also be the firstborn (68:18).

 

 

 

There was only one High Priest at a time in the Old Testament. When he died or

relinquished his position, a new one would take his place. But in the LDS Church, you

have multiple High Priests.  Even the Book of Mormon author makes the mistake of not

understanding this (Alma 46:6, 38).

 

 

 

I looked at that verse and it does not mention what you said.

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Actually Robert is at least partially correct here.

 

See Jeremiah 33: 16-18 as a supporting scripture.

 

Also from Teachings pp. 172- 173 and Doctrines of Salvation vol. 3, p. 94

 

"These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built (in Jerusalem), and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings." 

 

So your own leadership believes this is the case.

 

The only comment I could add is that the Lord's Temple that will be built in Jerusalem will be the only legitimate temple at that time and further, the only legitimate one that has existed since the fall of the Jerusalem temple under the Romans.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Palerider

[canard78]

I tried pointing out above that we have plenty of non-Israelite priesthood in the Bible.  Priests are required, yes, and there are non-Levitical priests in the Book of Mormon (Jacob being the first to be mentioned, and he is a Manassite).  So what is the problem?  I just don't see it.  Here's what I said above:

 

"The Bible recognizes priesthood as being legitimately held by others than the tribes of Israel, namely people like Moses' father-in-law Jethro (high priest of Midian), Melchizedek, and even Joseph's father-in-law, the High Priest of Heliopolis in Egypt (kohen).  The late Frank Moore Cross dealt with some of that issue in his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel(Harvard, 1997)."

 

Doesn't that mean that using the tribe of Levi as an example of priesthood restriction becomes a bit of a weak point? I'm not saying you do use that example, just that those that do haven't considered the whole picture.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, just a point to add in, is that many scholars believe that Luke, who was the only author to connect John with the Aaronic lineage, was creating the story.

The earlier accounts do not assign a priesthood to John. Vermes covers this.

Knowing so little as we do, and with so few corroborative records, it seems quite possible that John's priestly legacy is mere legend.  Yet, in his long article on the Baptizer for the Anchor Bible Dictionary (III:887-899), Paul Hollenbach states that "there seems to be no good reason to doubt that, as this story indicates (Luke 1:5), John was a descendant of devout rural priests.  Indeed, other sections of the gospels confirm that John had priestly concerns.  He engaged in the rituals of baptism, fasting, and prayer (Luke 5:33; 111:1)."  Hollenbach goes on to make comparisons between John and the priestly concerns of the Qumran covenanters, concluding that, "despite the paucity of particulars . . he came from a family of radicalized rural priests." (Freedman, ed., ABD, III:892).

[Robert F. Smith]

Doesn't that mean that using the tribe of Levi as an example of priesthood restriction becomes a bit of a weak point? I'm not saying you do use that example, just that those that do haven't considered the whole picture.

I don't see it as a lesson on restriction, but rather an injection of clarity into the usual and erroneous claim that (1) only members of the tribe of Levi could do priestly functions, and (2) that only the line of Aaron within that tribe could exercise the most important priestly functions.  Others could and did exercise the function of a priest (kohen), which leaves the Book of Mormon in good company.

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually Robert is at least partially correct here.

 

See Jeremiah 33: 16-18 as a supporting scripture.

 

Also from Teachings pp. 172- 173 and Doctrines of Salvation vol. 3, p. 94

 

"These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built (in Jerusalem), and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings." 

 

So your own leadership believes this is the case.

 

The only comment I could add is that the Lord's Temple that will be built in Jerusalem will be the only legitimate temple at that time and further, the only legitimate one that has existed since the fall of the Jerusalem temple under the Romans.

Actually, the Temple of the High Priest Onias IV in Egypt at Leontopolis (Tell el-Yehudiyeh) claimed to be more legitimate than the one in Jerusalem, and it lasted longer than the one in Jerusalem.  Both were destroyed by the Romans.

 

Religious Jews might certainly agree with you on the legitimacy of the projected Jerusalem Temple, though none knows when that frabjous day will come.

Meantime, you might want to read a paper presented last Oct 26 at BYU by Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "The Great Jerusalem Temple Prophecy -- Latter-day context and Likening Unto Us," in Ascending the Mountain of the Lord (BYU Religious Studies Center, 2013), which you can obtain on the internet from Amazon (or through BYU Bookstore at a good discount).  I attended Chadwick's presentation and thought it quite good.  The focus is on Isaiah 2:1-3.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

An interesting article on the priests and the temple:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/levitical_priests.htm

[Robert F. Smith]

An interesting article on the priests and the temple:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/levitical_priests.htm

Yes, Bernard,

The Jewish "Temple Institute" is the premier organization preparing for the day when the Jerusalem Temple will be rebuilt.  They are making the very expensive utensils to be used in the Temple, and are training priests for their supposed functions.  They are also raising red heifers for the purification ceremony of the Temple Mount, whenever that becomes possible.  Some say that this will only happen when the Messiah comes.