Sanhedrin and Apostasy?

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You're thinking of an LDS context, instead of the Jewish context.  A lineal descendant of Aaron who is also an LDS convert can theoretically be an LDS bishop without counselors.  He need not even be a High Priest.  You are correct that he needs the approval of the LDS First Presidency to do that.  However, that is not my point:  My point is that LDS doctrine on the lineal priesthood of Aaron is very clear.  It is still in force, as in Numbers 8.

My understanding is that this is true just relative to the Bishop's duties in the Aaronic Priesthood but not his duties in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Plus of course given how we have the Aaronic Priesthood tied to youth today, anyone who wanted to do that without counselors would have to be a masochist.

12 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Got it. Personal apostasies happened, but the priesthood of god never left the earth.

The Aaronic Priesthood in its lineage function, although since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem they have not practiced the temple rites. So in that sense the Priesthood is not being exercised. Given that we know those rites were done outside of Jerusalem during the exile and of course before Solomon built his temple that's a de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances. The Orthodox Jews believe only the Messiah can reintroduce the practice of such rites, although some Conservative Jews are preparing for them.

From a Mormon perspective it's the higher ordinances that are gone - and were gone from Israel well before Christ. Exactly when is speculated upon. Some say that as a general practice it was when Moses took the higher law and gave the carnal commandments. Others say the Sons of Moses were the Melchizedek Priesthood and it continued in the School of the Prophets until around the time of the exile. Others think individual prophets were set apart but there was no general Melchizedek Priesthood due to apostasy. Still others think that it persisted until around the time of Malachi after the return from exile. Since the texts are corrupt, often. dropping information about rival priesthoods during the Priestly and Deuteronomist redactions and whole books left out when the Old Testament was compiled we'll likely never know archaeologically. There's also thought that many rites in the Old Testament actually arose at a fairly late period - some being seen by scholars as post-exilic.

A common apologetic view is that Lehi was outside of these Deuteronomist and Priestly centralizations of the cult to privilege the temple in Jerusalem. Thus his tendency to offer sacrifice in high places, which starts getting condemned during the Josiah reforms. He also functions in priestly ways whereas the Priestly centralization, particular during the exile, put all those duties purely among the Kohen in Jerusalem. (These shifts can be seen in the text of Jeremiah although many scholars think that text corrupt as well) If Lehi was part of a rival priesthood in the School of the Prophets along with Jeremiah then the conflicted views of the reforms in the Book of Mormon makes sense. It's also an other indication that this apostasy in terms of the Melchizedek Priesthood was happening in the time of Lehi. Although again given that we only have the final version of the texts from centuries later we'll be unlikely able to prove it.

Edited May 21, 2019 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

My understanding is that this is true just relative to the Bishop's duties in the Aaronic Priesthood but not his duties in the Melchizedek Priesthood. ............

His office has nothing to do with the Melchizedek priesthood.  He heads the Aaronic priesthood in his ward, and is a common judge in Israel.

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Aaronic Priesthood in its lineage function, although since the Roman destruction of Jerusalem they have not practiced the temple rites. So in that sense the Priesthood is not being exercised. Given that we know those rites were done outside of Jerusalem during the exile and of course before Solomon built his temple that's a de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances. The Orthodox Jews believe only the Messiah can reintroduce the practice of such rites, although some Conservative Jews are preparing for them.

The lineal priests of Aaron perform rites today within Judaism, e.g., blessing the congregation on Yom Kippur, performing Redemption of the Firstborn, etc.  Every Orthodox Jew understands that and accepts it.  There is no "de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances" among the Jews.  American "Conservative" Jews are actually not conservative at all.  The priesthood within Judaism is considered to have the same authority they always had.  A rebuilt temple would simply increase the demands for their services.  It is the Orthodox Jews who are preparing for that.

44 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

From a Mormon perspective it's the higher ordinances that are gone - and were gone from Israel well before Christ. Exactly when is speculated upon. Some say that as a general practice it was when Moses took the higher law and gave the carnal commandments. Others say the Sons of Moses were the Melchizedek Priesthood and it continued in the School of the Prophets until around the time of the exile. Others think individual prophets were set apart but there was no general Melchizedek Priesthood due to apostasy. Still others think that it persisted until around the time of Malachi after the return from exile. Since the texts are corrupt, often. dropping information about rival priesthoods during the Priestly and Deuteronomist redactions and whole books left out when the Old Testament was compiled we'll likely never know archaeologically. There's also thought that many rites in the Old Testament actually arose at a fairly late period - some being seen by scholars as post-exilic..........................

Most of this is rank speculation, without a solid basis.

[RevTestament]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

It was pointed out to me that D&C 84:27-28 indicates that John was ordained by an angel of God. @Wade Englund indicates that there was no priesthood on earth, and you say that John’s father gave him the authority.

How am I to understand all this?

I hesitate to intervene in your conversation, but read those verses, and they should answer you:

"and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power."

This says to me that the house of Aaron was still authorized to perform the temple sacrifices. Yeshua also indicates they were authorized to sit in Moses' seat. Now was John ordained to a priesthood at eight days of age? That is not what the verse says. It says he was ordained or perhaps it would make more sense to read it foreordained to this power - "to overthrow the kindgom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord," and prepare the people. That is a task - not a priesthood. All this indicates to me that as Robert and I have been saying - the levitical priesthood was still authorized to perform its functions. It was the high priesthood which was no longer authorized nor authoritative. 

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

So how did the apostasy happen if we’ve had many of the tribe of Levi who have continued to hold this priesthood?

As I have repeatedly said, being authorized is not the same as being correct. A legal agent may act incorrectly. In this case after Yeshua died, a new covenant was in effect - the old covenant was replaced, and was no longer authorized. Those verses above say they were authorized "until John."  I personally believe it was at this point that the Aaronic priesthood of the Levites was in complete apostasy. It was replaced by Yeshua, and it too later fell into apostasy. So a Levite cannot hold a valid priesthood without accepting Christ, and being ordained by an authorized modern priesthood holder. I hope that answers your questions.

Edited May 21, 2019 by RevTestament

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

As long as you understand that the office and keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) need to be conferred (i.e. designated, found worth, anointed, and ordained) under the hand of the First Presidency of the Melchizedek priesthood, even with the lineal descendants of Aaron, then we are in agreement.,

However, this condition is critical to whether the Aaron priesthood is or was  of heaven or of earth, of God or of man, at various times within certain dispensations. When the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were taken from the earth, then logically the office and keys of the bishopric could no longer be conferred, and were likewise subsequently taken from the earth, and could only be restored through the restoration of the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood.   

I am of the belief that at the time of Christs mortal ministry, the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood had long been taken from the earth--at least in the Old World, which meant that the Aaronic priesthood functioning at that time, was in a state of apostasy.  And, while the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood were restored at the time of Christ, they, along with the keys of the bishopric (Aaronic priesthood) were eventually taken from the earth via the "Great apostasy," until they were restored in the latter days.

So you are saying that the angel Gabriel coming to Zechariah in the temple was nonsense, that his son John the Baptizer had no role since he had no priesthood, that Gabriel coming to Miriam was also nonsense, and that the greeting of John to Jesus, both still in their mothers' wombs, is likewise just nonsense, and that John's actions in the spirit of Elijah as the Forerunner of Christ are also nonsense, that his priestly status was nil.  We can just ignore Luke 1:5-45.  Right?

8 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I believe that Christ and his disciples submitted to the apostate rituals and ordinances as a mater of form, ...........................

All that so that they could just go through the motions.  Getting baptized by John, having his Father voice approval, and the Holy Spirit alighting upon him, all just a matter of form, in order to fulfill all the .....apostate wink-wink?  Is that what Joseph Smith would say?

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

His office has nothing to do with the Melchizedek priesthood.  He heads the Aaronic priesthood in his ward, and is a common judge in Israel.

Umm. Many of his duties within the ward are Melchizedek priesthood related. The temporal duties such as welfare, duties to the young men (Aaronic Priesthood) and duties over baptism are all under his role as head of the Aaronic Priesthood. The keys over giving the gift of the holy ghost (confirmation), worthiness interviews for the temple, and his actings as the presiding authority for the ward by virtue of the keys of the Stake President are all Melchizedek Priesthood related. With the merging of Elders quorum and High Priests quorum things are a bit muddled there. However it used to be that while Elders quorum had to be approved by the Stake President the Bishop technically presided over and directed them by virtue of Stake President keys. So that is the Bishop operating under the authority (keys) of the Stake President in a Melchizedek Priesthood duty. Again, that may be changed somewhat with the recent changes. I'm assuming the relation of Bishop to EQ hasn't changed substantially though. I also assume that calling and setting apart a Relief Society President is a Melchizedek Priesthood duty and not tied in any way to his role as head of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward. 

I'll admit though that these practices haven't necessarily been clarified doctrinally given the changes over the past 30 years to ward and priesthood structure.

The one place I'm a bit unsure is Bishops courts for disfellowshipping (not excommunication). I don't know if that's been clarified. I could see it under his role as judge in Israel under the Aaronic Priesthood although that seems problematic since the Bishop can disfellowship Melchizedek Priesthood holders, although not excommunicate them. There's also questions there regarding those who've entered into temple covenants since women in that case have entered into the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood and one could easily see that as tied to it and thus requiring Melchizedek Priesthood keys.

Of course all that approach to authority assumes a certain reification of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Jonathan Stapley has argued somewhat persuasively that we should distinguish the temple or cosmological Melchizedek Priesthood from the ecclesiastical Melchizedek Priesthood. In that case we're really just talking about the later. Elder Oaks has also tended to distinguish between keys given by someone having them from offices in the priesthood. It's not quite clear how far he wants to push that distinction though.

So there's a lot undeveloped or at least unclear here.

Edited May 21, 2019 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

The Bishops is also designated the Presiding High Priest of the Ward and functions in that capacity. The Bishop presides over the Elder’s Quorum and previously over the High Priest Group in his ward in that capacity. This is also what allows him to hold the keys over confirmations and Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances within the ward under the direction of the President of the High Priest quorum, the Stake President.

[Hestia]

Wade Englund is taking a break from the board for a few days.  Please ignore his comments and move on.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Bishops is also designated the Presiding High Priest of the Ward and functions in that capacity. The Bishop presides over the Elder’s Quorum and previously over the High Priest Group in his ward in that capacity. This is also what allows him to hold the keys over confirmations and Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances within the ward under the direction of the President of the High Priest quorum, the Stake President.

Did he Preside over the High Priest Group? I think in a delegated form he directed them, but I thought the High Priest Group was different from the Elders Quorum relative to the connection to the Bishop. That's why they were a group rather than a quorum. As a group they were directly under the Stake President. I think that the Seventy prior to being disbanded functioned in a similar fashion.

It's interesting as I think these changes over the past 30 years or so (forget when the change to the 70 happened) really does have doctrinal implications. Quorums now are really seen as independent of Priesthood office whereas in the past they were seen as tied together. This in turn leads, I think, to a changing view of the significance of office - culminating arguably in Elder Oaks' talk a few years ago on women and priesthood.

I don't think the significance of Elder Oaks' talk is appreciated. However I think he largely is shifting the discussion away from offices into keys. In this scheme offices just represent standard keys that could be given. That is a Priest can baptize but that only represents potential as the Bishop (or Mission President) has to still give the permission (keys). High Priest thus becomes less significant than in the past as it just represents either having had a calling (Bishopric, Stake President, or Seventy in the modern sense) and thus having exercised keys or having that calling and exercising the keys. The clear implication is to stop thinking about offices and instead think about keys.

Getting back to the OP, this then shifts how we think of the Aaronic Priesthood. Some keys remain in place, even if not practiced. So a Levite can make offerings. Some keys exist as potential, such as a Kohen functioning in the Aaronic Priesthood component of a Bishop. I should add that some also distinguish here the Bishop of a ward from the Presiding Bishop, and some see it not as a general Kohen feature but the rightful High Priest.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

............................. Elder Oaks has also tended to distinguish between keys given by someone having them from offices in the priesthood. It's not quite clear how far he wants to push that distinction though.

So there's a lot undeveloped or at least unclear here.

Yes, it certainly is undeveloped, and you raise a bunch of legitimate concerns.  However, you are likely correct to see that Pres Oaks has pointed our way to understanding the broader priesthood functions by non-priesthood holders (women on missions or in the temple, for example), which may suggest a way in which someone who holds the power equivalent to that of the chief kohen Caiaphas in Jesus' day could be only an Aaronide, yet have tremendous authority.  We don't know how an Aaronide would function as a ward bishop because I don't think that it has been done yet.  I don't envy anyone trying to figure it all out, but they could at least begin with your helpful list of problems.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Did he Preside over the High Priest Group? I think in a delegated form he directed them, but I thought the High Priest Group was different from the Elders Quorum relative to the connection to the Bishop. That's why they were a group rather than a quorum. As a group they were directly under the Stake President. I think that the Seventy prior to being disbanded functioned in a similar fashion.

It's interesting as I think these changes over the past 30 years or so (forget when the change to the 70 happened) really does have doctrinal implications. Quorums now are really seen as independent of Priesthood office whereas in the past they were seen as tied together. This in turn leads, I think, to a changing view of the significance of office - culminating arguably in Elder Oaks' talk a few years ago on women and priesthood.

I don't think the significance of Elder Oaks' talk is appreciated. However I think he largely is shifting the discussion away from offices into keys. In this scheme offices just represent standard keys that could be given. That is a Priest can baptize but that only represents potential as the Bishop (or Mission President) has to still give the permission (keys). High Priest thus becomes less significant than in the past as it just represents either having had a calling (Bishopric, Stake President, or Seventy in the modern sense) and thus having exercised keys or having that calling and exercising the keys. The clear implication is to stop thinking about offices and instead think about keys.

Getting back to the OP, this then shifts how we think of the Aaronic Priesthood. Some keys remain in place, even if not practiced. So a Levite can make offerings. Some keys exist as potential, such as a Kohen functioning in the Aaronic Priesthood component of a Bishop. I should add that some also distinguish here the Bishop of a ward from the Presiding Bishop, and some see it not as a general Kohen feature but the rightful High Priest.

He is not the Quorum President of the High Priest group. That is the Stake President but he does presided over them. With the recent changes the office of High Priest still exists but High Priests who are not currently in a calling requiring that office are part of the Elder’s Quorum and their direct Priesthood leader is the Elder’s Quorum President. Now a High Priest Quorum only consists of the Stake Presidency, the Stake High Council members, the Bishoprics within the Stake, and the Stake Patriarch. In a way High Priests without specific calling are now like Patriarchs not assigned to a Stake. The office is there but it is not active.

I do believe that the rightful descendant of Aaron has a right to be the Aaronic High Priest whose job in the modern church is to be the Presiding Bishop and the guy in charge of all temporal concerns in the church under the direction of the apostles.

The only office I know of that automatically holds keys is being an apostle and many of those keys are held in trust. Keys are held only by quorum presidents. Your average ward has three people holding keys: Bishop, Elder’s Quorum President, Teacher’s Quorum President, and Deacon’s Quorum President. Keys let you direct the use of the Priesthood. Some powers are delegated generally and do not require permission to use. I can bless someone, dedicate my home, administer to the sick, cast out devils, and several other ordinances without seeking permission. Other powers like blessing and administering the sacrament, baptism, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, giving a patriarchal blessing, setting apart a missionary or bishop, setting apart for a calling, ordaining someone to the Priesthood or an office, translating someone, resurrecting someone, temple ordinances, and many more require the person with the keys to authorize it. If that person does not authorize it the ordinance is invalid.

Edited May 22, 2019 by The Nehor

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The lineal priests of Aaron perform rites today within Judaism, e.g., blessing the congregation on Yom Kippur, performing Redemption of the Firstborn, etc.  Every Orthodox Jew understands that and accepts it.  There is no "de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances" among the Jews.  American "Conservative" Jews are actually not conservative at all.  The priesthood within Judaism is considered to have the same authority they always had.  A rebuilt temple would simply increase the demands for their services.  It is the Orthodox Jews who are preparing for that.

They perform some rites, but not the temple rites. That's what I meant by de facto cessation of priesthood ordinances. That they do some is somewhat beside the point. As I mentioned during the period of the first exile they were fine doing such rites. They've developed a theology saying the Messiah needs to reintroduce them but that's pretty debatable in terms of Torah support, as I'm sure you know. I certainly recognize that conservative Jews represent a different movement more akin to reform Jews but perhaps more conservative in terms of what they reject than most reform Jews. Some Orthodox Jews are preparing items for the Messiah, but some Conservative Jews feel something earlier can and should be done. That's all I was addressing.

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of this is rank speculation, without a solid basis.

Yup. Thus the diversity of views. Although typically they represent more likely possibilities.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The only office I know of that automatically holds keys is being an apostle and many of those keys are held in trust. Keys are held only by quorum presidents. Your average ward has three people holding keys: Bishop, Elder’s Quorum President, Teacher’s Quorum President, and Deacon’s Quorum President. Keys let you direct the use of the Priesthood. Some powers are delegated generally and do not require permission to use. 

The most interesting aspect of a key focused theology rather than a reified office theology is keys of delegation. Again, not something terribly well worked out, but intriguing. If you look at these delegatable keys they are held only by apostles, 70, stake presidents, mission presidents and bishops. You have other offices and callings with keys, but not this delegation feature.