Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood Is A Unique Lds Belief. . .

[Canadaigua]

The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood held by LDS/Christian men in the NT church is a unique LDS belief that is not held by other Christian Churches--expect perhaps the FLDS.  This topic was superficially discussed in another thread namely "When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?" but this is an interesting topic worthy of a new thread.

 

Flyonthewall in the above mentioned thread (post #257) gave a brief position that I think most LDS would agree with and I will quote that below as a starting point for further discussion

 

Flyonthewall

"The lesser preisthood was in affect until Jesus Christ came and taught the fullness of the gospel. There may have been individual Prophets that held the higher preisthood during this time but the Mosaic law was run by the lesser preisthood.

When Jesus Christ came, then there was a neccissity of a change in preisthood as described in the Bible.

 

 

 

Do LDS feel that the NT teaches that the NT Christian members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood OR do these beliefs come from modern day revelation?

[Boanerges]

I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but modern prophets have referenced the fullness of the gospel (the everlasting covenant)  being present in all dispensations. I gave a talk on this once, I'll try to find the refernces. If it is true that the Melchizedek Priesthood is necessary to the fullness of the gospel and the fullness was here in OT dispensations, the MP must have been present.

[Bobbieaware]

The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood held by LDS/Christian men in the NT church is a unique LDS belief that is not held by other Christian Churches--expect perhaps the FLDS. This topic was superficially discussed in another thread namely "When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?" but this is an interesting topic worthy of a new thread.

Flyonthewall in the above mentioned thread (post #257) gave a brief position that I think most LDS would agree with and I will quote that below as a starting point for further discussion

Flyonthewall

"The lesser preisthood was in affect until Jesus Christ came and taught the fullness of the gospel. There may have been individual Prophets that held the higher preisthood during this time but the Mosaic law was run by the lesser preisthood.

When Jesus Christ came, then there was a neccissity of a change in preisthood as described in the Bible.

Do LDS feel that the NT teaches that the NT Christian members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood OR do these beliefs come from modern day revelation?

From the time of Adam, through the patriarchal period, and right up to the rebellion of the children of Israel under Moses, there was only one priesthood on the earth and that priesthood was the Melchizedek Priesthood (up to the time of Melchizedek, the priesthood was known as the Priesthood of the Son of God)..According to the prophet Joseph Smith, all priesthood offices are part of the Melchizedek Priesthood, So during the patriarchal period the offices of deacon, teacher and priest were simply offices within the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph Smith put it this way:

"All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 180).

So the reason why we've come to think of the offices of deacon, teacher and priest as being separated from the offices and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood is because during Moses' day the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priestood were broken off from their natural placement within the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood and temporarily placed under the heading of the priesthood of Aaron until the Law of Moses was fulfilled and rendered defunct by the sacrifice of Christ. After the sacrifice of Christ, the Aaronic priesthood was changed in that it was no longer left as a stand-alone priesthood structure under the authority of a presiding Aaronic priesthood high priest; but, as it was in the days of the patriarchs, the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood were once again placed within and subsumed within the natural authority structure of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

So all priesthood is Melchizedek Priesthood. The only reason why there is confusion is because for the sake of convenience in differentiating between the lower offices and higher offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priestood are referred to as being "Aaronic" (again, the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood). But it must be understood that that today's Aaronic Priestood does not function as did the "split off" Aaronic Priesthood authority structure of the law of Moses. For example, the Aaronic priests of the Law of Moses sacrificed animals in similitude of the coming sacrifice of Christ. Meanwhile, today's priests in the LDS Church consecrate and offer up the emblems of Christ's sacrifice in the holy ordinance known as "the Lord's Supper." Today's priests do not offer up blood animal sacrifices. Because today's priests in the LDS Church function under the authority umbrella of the Melchizedek Priestood, they do not officiate in the ordinances of the now defunct law of Moses.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Canadaigua]

. . .So all priesthood is Melchizedek Priesthood. The only reason why there is confusion is because for the sake of convenience in differentiating between the lower offices and higher offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priestood are referred to as being "Aaronic" (again, the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood). But it must be understood that that today's Aaronic Priestood does not function as did the "split off" Aaronic Priesthood authority structure of the law of Moses. For example, the Aaronic priests of the Law of Moses sacrificed animals in similitude of the coming sacrifice of Christ. . .

Thanks for your well thought out lengthly answer.  But I guess my question would still be, do you believe that what you have said is taught in the Bible OR do you think that this is your belief based on modern revelation.

 

Perhaps I can give you my perspective on this so you can see how our beliefs differ and give us some direction for further discussion. The Aaronic priesthood was set up during the time of Moses and this priesthood was restricted to a single tribe of Israel (namely the Levites--and even more specific than this--a subset of the Levites via the line of Aaron).  Under this system there were many priests who performed various duties, but there was only a single high priest on the earth at a time and when that high priest died he was replaced by a successor.

 

 

When did the Aaronic priesthood change which would allow non Levites to be Aaronic priests?

[JLHPROF]

 

When did the Aaronic priesthood change which would allow non Levites to be Aaronic priests?

 

The gospel, and by extension, the priesthood has always had restrictions.

Until Peter extended the gospel to the gentiles in Acts he was only preaching to the Jews.  In Matthew Christ himself was going to deny the Canaanite woman at first.

Sometimes those restrictions are lifted.  Christ healed the Canaanite woman.  Peter took the gospel to the gentiles.  And the priesthood was extended beyond the Levites.  This restriction was based in the law of Moses, which was fulfilled when Christ came and the law was supplanted, exemplified when the Levitical descendant John the Baptist made way for Christ.  The priesthood authority still existed but the law restricting it was fulfilled and supplanted along with the rest of the law of Moses.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for your well thought out lengthly answer.  But I guess my question would still be, do you believe that what you have said is taught in the Bible OR do you think that this is your belief based on modern revelation.

 

Perhaps I can give you my perspective on this so you can see how our beliefs differ and give us some direction for further discussion. The Aaronic priesthood was set up during the time of Moses and this priesthood was restricted to a single tribe of Israel (namely the Levites--and even more specific than this--a subset of the Levites via the line of Aaron).  Under this system there were many priests who performed various duties, but there was only a single high priest on the earth at a time and when that high priest died he was replaced by a successor.

 

 

When did the Aaronic priesthood change which would allow non Levites to be Aaronic priests?

 

The LDS are not bound to what is just in the Bible.

 

Not long after the majority of the Israelite's were taken captive into Babylon.

[Darren10]

My understanding is that nowhere in the Bible does it mention a priesthood, particularly people being ordained into it. Despite this, the LDS faith believes that God's priesthood is what governed the things of God. That this governing power was given to man. Here's from JST Genesis 14:

27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,

28 It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;

29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/14.33?lang=eng#32

This was in regards to Melchizedek himself. The remaining verses of that same chapter are powerful. They lay out the potency of the priesthood. Also, if I'm not mistaken, latter-day scripture makes it clear that when Moses returned from Mount Sinai and witnessed the Israelites sinning and turning away from YHWH, the masses lost the Melchizedek Priesthood but Moses retained it.

[bjw]

This is not exactly a unique LDS belief. Some of the higher degrees of Scottish Rite masonry mention the purification and oath to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Other initiatory orders also make reference to it, but some of these may share a common source with masonry.

[cinepro]

The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood held by LDS/Christian men in the NT church is a unique LDS belief that is not held by other Christian Churches--expect perhaps the FLDS.  This topic was superficially discussed in another thread namely "When Did Jesus Receive The Aaronic And Melchizedek Priesthood?" but this is an interesting topic worthy of a new thread.

 

Flyonthewall in the above mentioned thread (post #257) gave a brief position that I think most LDS would agree with and I will quote that below as a starting point for further discussion

 

Flyonthewall

"The lesser preisthood was in affect until Jesus Christ came and taught the fullness of the gospel. There may have been individual Prophets that held the higher preisthood during this time but the Mosaic law was run by the lesser preisthood.

When Jesus Christ came, then there was a neccissity of a change in preisthood as described in the Bible.

 

 

 

Do LDS feel that the NT teaches that the NT Christian members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood OR do these beliefs come from modern day revelation?

 

To be fair, not even the LDS Church taught that there were "Aaronic" and "Melchezidek" Priesthoods until 1834.

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks for your well thought out lengthly answer. But I guess my question would still be, do you believe that what you have said is taught in the Bible OR do you think that this is your belief based on modern revelation.

Perhaps I can give you my perspective on this so you can see how our beliefs differ and give us some direction for further discussion. The Aaronic priesthood was set up during the time of Moses and this priesthood was restricted to a single tribe of Israel (namely the Levites--and even more specific than this--a subset of the Levites via the line of Aaron). Under this system there were many priests who performed various duties, but there was only a single high priest on the earth at a time and when that high priest died he was replaced by a successor.

When did the Aaronic priesthood change which would allow non Levites to be Aaronic priests?

Your last question indicates you missed the main point of my post. You have it exactly backward. In Mormonism, it's understood the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood PREEXISTED the law of Moses and the creation a priesthood order that could only be held by the descendants of Levi and Aaron. Prior to the births of Levi and Aaron, the priesthood offices that later became identified with their names already existed as part of the Melchizedek Priesthood. After the law of Moses was fulfilled, in and through the atoning sacrifice of the Son of God, the Aaronic priesthood and its authority for officiating in the ordinances of the law of Moses came to an end, and the lower offices of the Melchizedek priesthood returned to the place of their proper order, taking their original positions within the hierarchy of the Melchizedek Priesthood's offices.

As I've already stated, the reason why there is so much confusion on this point is because, for reason of convenience, as an easy way to identify the lower offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the LDS Church referes to the priesthood offices of deacon, teacher and priest as belonging to the lower "Aaronic" level of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Today's Aaronic priesthood of the LDS Church has absolutely nothing to do with the law of Moses and the Mosaic ordinance ministry of Aaron and the Levites. Again, in today's restored Church of Jesus Christ the term "Aaronic Priesthood" is simply used as an easy way to identify the lower priesthood offices that belong to the Melchizedek Priesthood, with these lower priesthood offices now splendedly adapted to serve as training stations for the LDS male youth in preparation for receiving the higher priesthood offices.

Bottom line? The Latter-day Saints simply believe the order of today's priesthood has been restored to the way it existed during the Patriarchal Period, before the Law of Moses and the Aaronic priesthood were temporarily added "because of transgressions." The Law of Moses and the priesthood order that sustained the Law of Moses were, by design, meant to be temporary. Conversely, the Melchizedek Priesthood is eternal and endures forever.

Edited May 14, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Kenngo1969]

This is not exactly a unique LDS belief. Some of the higher degrees of Scottish Rite masonry mention the purification and oath to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Other initiatory orders also make reference to it, but some of these may share a common source with masonry.

Huh.  Who knew?  Thanks for your erudite contribution to the thread.  Nice to cyber-see you.  (It happens too seldom! )

[Tacenda]

This is not exactly a unique LDS belief. Some of the higher degrees of Scottish Rite masonry mention the purification and oath to be ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. Other initiatory orders also make reference to it, but some of these may share a common source with masonry.

The sceptics might say that's where JS picked it up from.

[Bobbieaware]

The sceptics might say that's where JS picked it up from.

I guess the fact that Alma 13 (published as part of the Book of Mormon in 1830) goes on at length about Melchizedek and the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God won't impress the skeptics very much when they have other, though much later, juicy tidbits to chew on to fuel their skepticism.

[bjw]

Huh.  Who knew?  Thanks for your erudite contribution to the thread.  Nice to cyber-see you.  (It happens too seldom! )

Sorry, didn't mean to seem like a "shotgun contributor" to the thread, I just thought it would be better to correct faith promoting rumors before they get started and the wrong side has a chance. I haven't been back to the boards as much as I would like lately as I've had a series of family emergencies.

Actually, I was already a Mormon a few years before getting into masonry, and another LDS member getting the degrees the same day noticed the similarities as well. It bugged us that the old man playing the main narrator kept pronouncing it "Melhadeck" and we both wanted to correct him. The non confidential parts of the degrees can be read in the Scottish Rite ritual monitor, and commentary on the lectures is available in "Bridge to Light " by Rex Hutchens and " Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike. Both of us discussed it afterwards and we noticed similarities to the Mormon priesthood structure and some similarities with the temple.

It is believed by some esoteric minded masons these things like the priesthoods were not originally part of masonry but were later absorbed from middle age Christian mystics (Elus Cohen, martinist, etc.) The reason being much of these things bear little resemblance to blue lodge masonry. (Probably not available to early Mormons though)

[Robert F. Smith]

The Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood held by LDS/Christian men in the NT church is a unique LDS belief that is not held by other Christian Churches--expect perhaps the FLDS.  ..............................................................................

 

Do LDS feel that the NT teaches that the NT Christian members held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood OR do these beliefs come from modern day revelation?

 

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

Actually, I was already a Mormon a few years before getting into masonry, and another LDS member getting the degrees the same day noticed the similarities as well. It bugged us that the old man playing the main narrator kept pronouncing it "Melhadeck" and we both wanted to correct him. The non confidential parts of the degrees can be read in the Scottish Rite ritual monitor, and commentary on the lectures is available in "Bridge to Light " by Rex Hutchens and " Morals and Dogma" by Albert Pike. Both of us discussed it afterwards and we noticed similarities to the Mormon priesthood structure and some similarities with the temple.

It is believed by some esoteric minded masons these things like the priesthoods were not originally part of masonry but were later absorbed from middle age Christian mystics (Elus Cohen, martinist, etc.) The reason being much of these things bear little resemblance to blue lodge masonry. (Probably not available to early Mormons though)

Actually there is nothing unique about the LDS having both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods as these are also Roman Catholic in usage.  Every Roman Catholic priest is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and some of the lesser orders are Aaronic, such as deacons.  We have discussed the matter in detail before on this board, last year, though I cannot find the URL right now.

 

Masonic practice could easily have been taken directly from the Bible and Roman Catholic practice. 

[Canadaigua]

The gospel, and by extension, the priesthood has always had restrictions.

Until Peter extended the gospel to the gentiles in Acts he was only preaching to the Jews.  In Matthew Christ himself was going to deny the Canaanite woman at first.

Sometimes those restrictions are lifted.  Christ healed the Canaanite woman.  Peter took the gospel to the gentiles.  And the priesthood was extended beyond the Levites.  This restriction was based in the law of Moses, which was fulfilled when Christ came and the law was supplanted, exemplified when the Levitical descendant John the Baptist made way for Christ.  The priesthood authority still existed but the law restricting it was fulfilled and supplanted along with the rest of the law of Moses.

1. But you would agree that your belief that the restriction was lifted is based on modern day revelation. Agree?

2. When Christ was still alive (i.e. Prior to his crucifixion) they were still under the Law of Moses. Do you have a different belief?

[JLHPROF]

1. But you would agree that your belief that the restriction was lifted is based on modern day revelation. Agree?

2. When Christ was still alive (i.e. Prior to his crucifixion) they were still under the Law of Moses. Do you have a different belief?

 

 

No, I don't have a different belief.

Which is why deacons and bishops (both Aaronic offices, even when a Bishop is also a High Priest) aren't recorded in the Bible until AFTER Christ's atonement.  This is just one more evidence of the extension of Aaronic priesthood beyond the Levites.

[Canadaigua]

The LDS are not bound to what is just in the Bible.

 

Not long after the majority of the Israelite's were taken captive into Babylon.

I agree you, you are free to take your beliefs from whatever source you choose to take them from.

So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"?

Nope.

 

I'll through you  a bone if you do the same in return. You can have the doctrine of the Nicean Trinity because it is inferred through the bible. The same could be said of this topic of this thread. It is inferred.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Which is why deacons and bishops (both Aaronic offices, even when a Bishop is also a High Priest) aren't recorded in the Bible until AFTER Christ's atonement.  This is just one more evidence of the extension of Aaronic priesthood beyond the Levites.

Even though it is true that the English terms "deacon" and "bishop" do not appear in the Bible until early English translations of the Greek NT, it is not the case that they first appear there.  For the entire tribe of Levi are deacons, assistants, or helpers to the lineage of Aaron (also of the tribe of Levi) in performing their regular priestly functions.  Likewise the term bishop is merely the English form of a Greek word for Hebrew terms meaning pastor, supervisor already used in the OT and at Qumran.  The entire structure of the NT Church is taken wholesale from the Jewish synagogue structure, and from the structure of the brotherhood at Qumran.

 

Of course, it is precisely the LDS Church structure which most resembles that early Christian structure.

[JLHPROF]

Even though it is true that the English terms "deacon" and "bishop" do not appear in the Bible until early English translations of the Greek NT, it is not the case that they first appear there.  For the entire tribe of Levi are deacons, assistants, or helpers to the lineage of Aaron (also of the tribe of Levi) in performing their regular priestly functions.  Likewise the term bishop is merely the English form of a Greek word for Hebrew terms meaning pastor, supervisor already used in the OT and at Qumran.  The entire structure of the NT Church is taken wholesale from the Jewish synagogue structure, and from the structure of the brotherhood at Qumran.

 

Of course, it is precisely the LDS Church structure which most resembles that early Christian structure.

 

Thank you.

I am no expert on ancient cultures so this was interesting to me.

[bjw]

Actually there is nothing unique about the LDS having both Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods as these are also Roman Catholic in usage. Every Roman Catholic priest is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and some of the lesser orders are Aaronic, such as deacons. We have discussed the matter in detail before on this board, last year, though I cannot find the URL right now.

Masonic practice could easily have been taken directly from the Bible and Roman Catholic practice.

I agree with you, and this has long been touted by organizations that claim to be the "one true church" as a necessary point for a church to have the truth. I believe Catholics claim the pope to be heir to the Melchizedek priesthood and protestants believe all believers have it.

However, my specific point here was the priesthood received as an oath as a promotion from the lower priesthood, and a purification ritual involving washing and anointing granting blessings specific to parts of the body. (I won't get any more specific in respect to the Endowment and Scottish Rite, to protect the sacredness of the ceremonies) This seems exclusive to Mormonism, but they are not the only ones to have it, and while I am all for faith promoting apologetics, I think people should know that even though it is an ancient custom, it is not exclusive to Mormonism.

Edited May 14, 2015 by bjw

[Bobbieaware]

I agree you, you are free to take your beliefs from whatever source you choose to take them from.

So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"?

If the saints who overcome are promised they will be joint heirs with Christ and inherit ALL THINGS he himself possesses, why wouldn't the priesthood of Christ be one of the things the faithful possess when they inherit all things?

[thesometimesaint]

I agree you, you are free to take your beliefs from whatever source you choose to take them from.

So would you agree that the unique LDS beliefs with respect to the Aaronic/Melchizedek priesthood are not found in the Bible but rather are from "modern day revelation"?

 

The Levites were divided among the rest of the tribes. With the Babylonian conquest there weren't enough sons of Levi to officiate in Temple ceremonies. So adaptations were made.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Levites were divided among the rest of the tribes. With the Babylonian conquest there weren't enough sons of Levi to officiate in Temple ceremonies. So adaptations were made.

I'd be interested in your source on this claim.  CFR, buddy.