Jewish Priests--Who Do Not Even Believe In Jesus--Can They Really Function As Mormon Bishops?

[Robert F. Smith]

All Jews are Hebrews, but not all Hebrews are Jews.

You got that right.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

 

"According to Jewish tradition, Jewish ancestry is traced back to the Biblical patriarchs Abraham,Isaac and Jacob, who lived in Canaan around the 18th century BCE. Jacob and his family migrated to Ancient Egypt after being invited to live with Joseph (who rose to the rank ofPharaoh's Vizier) in the Land of Goshen region by Pharaoh himself. Their descendants were later enslaved until the Exodus led by Moses, which is commonly dated to the 13th century BCE. Historically, Jews have descended mostly from the tribes of Judah and Simeon, and partially from the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, who had all together formed the ancient Kingdom of Judah(alongside the remnants of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who migrated to their Southern counterpart and assimilated there). . ."

 

So you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses as Jews?

[Robert F. Smith]

Easton’s Bible dictionary

JEW—the name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites.

During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5).

 

New Nave’s Topical Bible

JEWS. A corrupted form, doubtless, of Judah, and applied to the people of the kingdom of Judah and Benjamin, 2 Kin. 16:6; 25:25; 2 Chr. 32:18. After the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel the name was applied to all Israelites, as well as to those of the two tribes.

 

So I take it that what Robert Smith said was incorrect (or at least was a miscommunication on his part)?

No, you have not quite paid strict attention to those sources (Nave & Easton):

 

You have confused the period after the destruction of Israel (the Northern ten tribes) and after the Exile of the Jews (Judah & Benjamin), with the period before.  Reread your sources carefully, because that is the distinction they make.  Since only Judah and Benjamin were left, all were now called Jews, and this even extended to the Levites (and Kohens) among them, and this is the terminology frequently used today by those who read their Bibles in a by-gosh-and-by-golly fashion.

[Robert F. Smith]

No.  The official doctrine says:

Quote

1–5, The words of the elders when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture; 6–12, Elders are to preach and baptize, and signs will follow true believers; 13–24, The firstborn among the sons of Aaron may serve as the Presiding Bishop (that is, hold the keys of presidency as a bishop) under the direction of the First Presidency; 25–28, Parents are commanded to teach the gospel to their children; 29–35, The Saints are to observe the Sabbath, labor diligently, and pray.

 

https://www.lds.org/....16?lang=eng#15

And:

 

Quote

D&C 68:15–21. Under What Conditions Can a Literal Descendant of Aaron Be a Bishop without Counselors?

    President Joseph Fielding Smith pointed out that this provision applied only to the office of Presiding Bishop of the Church: “It has no reference whatever to bishops of wards. Further, such a one must be designated by the First Presidency of the Church and receive his anointing and ordination under their hands. The revelation comes from the Presidency, not from the patriarch, to establish a claim to the right to preside in this office. In the absence of knowledge concerning such a descendant, any high priest, chosen by the Presidency, may hold the office of Presiding Bishop and serve with counselors.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:92.)

    “The office of Presiding Bishop of the Church is the same as the office which was held by Aaron. … It was this office which came to John the Baptist, and it was by virtue of the fact that he held the keys of this power and ministry that he was sent to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to restore that Priesthood, May 15, 1829. The person who has the legal right to this presiding office has not been discovered; perhaps is not in the Church, but should it be shown by revelation that there is one who is the ‘firstborn among the sons of Aaron,’ and thus entitled by birthright to this presidency, he could ‘claim’ his ‘anointing’ and the right to that office in the Church.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:259.)

https://www.lds.org/...vation?lang=eng

 

Sorry BC, but Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong in his interpretation, and his book does not constitute official doctrine.  One has only to read the D&C itself to see that he was simply incorrect:

 

D&C 68

14 There remain hereafter, in the due time of the Lord, other bishops to be set apart unto the church, to minister even according to the first;

15 Wherefore they shall be high priests who are worthy, and they shall be appointed by the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood, except they be literal descendants of Aaron.

16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;

17 For the firstborn holds the right of the presidency over this priesthood, and the keys or authority of the same.

18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.

19 But, as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power, under the hands of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.

21 But, by virtue of the decree concerning their right of the priesthood descending from father to son, they may claim their anointing if at any time they can prove their lineage, or do ascertain it by revelation from the Lord under the hands of the above named Presidency.

 

D&C 107

13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations.

14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances.

15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.

16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.

17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

.........................................................................  

69...a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron;

70 For unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot hold the keys of that priesthood.

71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;

72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

75 And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall act in the same office.

76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.

I call your particular attention to D&C 107:74,

Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

 

Every ward bishop holds the presidency of the Aaronic Priesthood in his ward, and holds the keys of that priesthood for his ward.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

This thread is based on one of your posts from another thread that was closed.  In order for others to understand the context I will briefly recap.  There are several LDS leaders who have stated that in the "restoration" animal sacrifices will be resumed.  It seems clear that this will be done within the LDS church itself.  However several LDS posters disagreed and said what the LDS leaders really meant was that this is speaking about the Jews and end time animal sacrifices prior to the second coming of Christ.  Thus when speaking about these "priests" these are non LDS--non Christ believing Jews who are performing these animal sacrifices.  Now let's look at Robert Smiths post since this is where his comment fits into the dialogue.

 

"CannyDayga just doesn't get it, and he doesn't read the LDS Scriptures, or he would know that the sons of Aaron are priests by lineal right, even in Mormonism.  He might want to look in the D&C.  They primarily serve the tribe of Judah, but could request full function as a bishop within a Mormon congregation."

 

​So Robert do you stand by your quote above or would you like to modify it a little bit?

No, the quotes are correct, and they stand as described.  Again:  Priests (kohens) serve the tribe of Judah today, as they always did.  Even LDS Scripture describes the priesthood authority of the kohens (sons of Aaron) as their right by lineal descent.

 

This all quite aside from your debate with others over whether animal sacrifice will be offered by the sons of Levi (the priests) at a future Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................  

Sure I am aware of "Messianic Jews".  In fact my pastor is a "Messianic Jew" and I can assure you we don't practice animal sacrifices--which of course is what we were discussing in the other thread.

Excellent.  Since your pastor knows Judaism well, based on his upbringing within Judaism, you ought to ask him to explain to you things like Levites, Kohens, animal sacrifice, and such.

 

Only the priests can perform the animal sacrifices at a temple, and it has not yet been rebuilt in Jerusalem.  You should refer to such plans at https://www.templeinstitute.org/ .

 

Malachi 3:

1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:

3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

mfbukowski

As usual, he has no clue what he is talking about, but goes straight for the jugular every time  (post#28)

 

Canadaigua

If you feel that you are right on this one and I am wrong explain it to me as this was discussed in the other thread. (post#32)

 

 

I gave you the opportunity to explain it from your point of view but you have yet to do so.  Why not?

 

I think that you exasperated them, Canadaigua.  Edited to remove the offensive name.  Sorry.

 

Please do not use a poster's screenname for mockery.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Doctrine 612]

Post 54 has the quote d and c 68:15,19 even if they are descendants of Aaron they to must be chosen by the first presidency, just like all the other bishops in the church. Just because they have legal right to it, makes no diffrence with out the first presidency, and the consent of the people.

I for one would not in good faith consent to a man that had no faith in our savior, to be a someone's sole purpose to lead me closer to christ, and not even believe in Christ.

[ERayR]

Post 54 has the quote d and c 68:15,19 even if they are descendants of Aaron they to must be chosen by the first presidency, just like all the other bishops in the church. Just because they have legal right to it, makes no diffrence with out the first presidency, and the consent of the people.

I for one would not in good faith consent to a man that had no faith in our savior, to be a someone's sole purpose to lead me closer to christ, and not even believe in Christ.

 

A lot of misunderstanding in this post.

 

Your posts as well as some others are descending into rudeness.  Address the post not the poster.

[Robert F. Smith]

Post 54 has the quote d and c 68:15,19 even if they are descendants of Aaron they to must be chosen by the first presidency, just like all the other bishops in the church. Just because they have legal right to it, makes no diffrence with out the first presidency, and the consent of the people.

I for one would not in good faith consent to a man that had no faith in our savior, to be a someone's sole purpose to lead me closer to christ, and not even believe in Christ.

As with Canadaigua:  Why would you assume that a descendant of Aaron had no faith in our Savior?  A very odd notion to my mind.

[EllenMaksoud]

 

Your title here is a bit odd:  Why can Jews not believe in the saving grace of Jesus the Messiah?

"Jewish Priests--Who Do Not Even Believe In Jesus--Can They Really Function As Mormon Bishops?"

Why can priests (cohens) among the Jews not believe in the saving grace of Jesus the Messiah?  Are you not aware of the many Messianic Jews?  As for the potential function as an LDS bishop without counselors, did you even bother to read the D&C on that issue?

 

Are you speaking of "Jews For Jesus"?

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you speaking of "Jews For Jesus"?

 

That is one group, but there are many other Messianic Jews.

[Rain]

I have a friend who is Jewish who joined the church as an adult.  While many Jews feel it is just a religions and she is not a Jew anymore, she still considers herself to be a Jew through her family history and a Christian.

[EllenMaksoud]

That is one group, but there are many other Messianic Jews.

I have known Muslims that are Messianic. Actually most Muslims believe in Isa PBUH (Jesus Christ), but they tailor it such that Allah SWT has no helpers, and most believe that at the time of the crucifixion, Judas was crucified in Jesus's place and he was taken up. Some think that would be a problem for the Atonement, but If you think about it carefully, not so much. The Sunnis I know believe the same thing about the end times that Christians do.

[volgadon]

Many of the worlds Jews today are descended from European converts to Judaism (the Kazhars for example) and make up the bulk of the current Israeli population

 

 

 

That racist theory has been debunked multiple times.

[volgadon]

One must not ignore the majority of Jews in Israel today, who are Sephardic Jews (Jews who come from Spain, North Africa, Arabia, and nearby Muslim countries).  Genetic research shows that Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Jews are actually related to one another via DNA

 

 

 

Did you know that Alexander Neibaur's mother came from a distinguished Sephardic family?

[Robert F. Smith]

I have known Muslims that are Messianic. Actually most Muslims believe in Isa PBUH (Jesus Christ), but they tailor it such that Allah SWT has no helpers, and most believe that at the time of the crucifixion, Judas was crucified in Jesus's place and he was taken up. Some think that would be a problem for the Atonement, but If you think about it carefully, not so much. The Sunnis I know believe the same thing about the end times that Christians do.

Yes of course.  Jesus, Peace Be Upon Him, is considered in Islam to have been a prophet, just as the prophets of the Old Testament.  The key difference is that Islam does not consider him as the very Son of God.  As it is said:  "Allah does not beget, and his not begotten."

[Robert F. Smith]

Did you know that Alexander Neibaur's mother came from a distinguished Sephardic family?

No, I did not.  Does this mean that Rebecca Neibaur Nibley was a quarter Ashkenazi, and a quarter Sephardi?  So her grandmother, Rebecca Peretz Neibaur was a Sephardic woman who bore Alexander Neibaur in Alsace-Lorraine?  How did she end up there?

[volgadon]

No, I did not.  Does this mean that Rebecca Neibaur Nibley was a quarter Ashkenazi, and a quarter Sephardi?  So her grandmother, Rebecca Peretz Neibaur was a Sephardic woman who bore Alexander Neibaur in Alsace-Lorraine?  How did she end up there?

 

The Peretz family is Sephardic. After the Expulsion, one branch went to North Africa, and another to Eastern Europe. The latter was thoroughly Ashkenazified in culture and rites by Neibaur's time, but it was a rather important family with yihus. It also produced the seminal figure of modern Yiddish literature- I. L. Peretz. Alexander Neibaur and I. L. Peretz are thus distantly related. Another distant relative is the oodious Moroccan Jewish MP in the Knesset- Amir Peretz.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Peretz family is Sephardic. After the Expulsion, one branch went to North Africa, and another to Eastern Europe. The latter was thoroughly Ashkenazified in culture and rites by Neibaur's time, but it was a rather important family with yihus. It also produced the seminal figure of modern Yiddish literature- I. L. Peretz. Alexander Neibaur and I. L. Peretz are thus distantly related. Another distant relative is the oodious Moroccan Jewish MP in the Knesset- Amir Peretz.

So Hugh Nibley had a special pedigree, as well as being the grandson of Charles W. Nibley.