JAHS Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) 1. Joseph Smith said "All priesthood is Melchizedek". He also said it is “after the order of the Son of God, and all other priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same and are held, controlled, and directed by it. “ (Joseph Smith.) If the Aaronic priesthood is part of the Melchizedek priesthood, why is the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on us again when we become elders? I have heard a few people claim that earlier in the history of the church (1921 - 1957) when a person became an elder the Melchizedek priesthood was not conferred on a person when he was ordained an elder (or at least the word "confer" was not used), he was just ordained an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. This actually makes some sense if all priesthood is Melchizedek. 2. "On the 3rd of June, the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders (History of the Church Vol 1 p 175) Why would elders need to have the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them? The definition of priesthood seemed very confusing during the earlier days of the church. Edited February 4, 2021 by JAHS 1
Robert F. Smith Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 45 minutes ago, JAHS said: 1. Joseph Smith said "All priesthood is Melchizedek". He also said it is “after the order of the Son of God, and all other priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same and are held, controlled, and directed by it. “ (Joseph Smith.) If the Aaronic priesthood is part of the Melchizedek priesthood, why is the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on us again when we become elders? I have heard a few people claim that earlier in the history of the church when a person became an elder the Melchizedek priesthood was not conferred on a person when he was ordained an elder (or at least the word "confer" was not used), he was just ordained an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. This actually makes some sense if all priesthood is Melchizedek. 2. "On the 3rd of June, the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders (History of the Church Vol 1 p 175) Why would elders need to have the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them? The definition of priesthood seemed very confusing during the earlier days of the church. A couple of problems here: To say that everyone is human is not to say that there are no men and women (gender). We can classify differences within a larger whole, and we always have. "Melchizedek" is only a nickname for the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God. However, just because all priesthood power comes from one source does not mean that various levels of it cannot be distinguished. Within the tribe of Levi there are various levels: Those who are the direct descendants of Aaron are the priests (kohens), while all other Levites perform lesser functions, just as the LDS Aaronic priesthood includes deacons, teachers, and priests. The term "elder" is essentially meaningless in LDS usage. Why? Because it is used to refer to a bunch of different categories. In one case, to General Authorities, in another to male missionaries, and in another to any man with the Melchizedek priesthood. It has no set, single meaning. Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox priesthood consists of two separate levels: Deacon and Priest, the one Aaronic and the other Melchizedek. The definition is not unique to LDS usage. Indeed, the LDS D&C specifically recognizes the priesthood rights of lineal descendants of Aaron. 3
teddyaware Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, JAHS said: 1. Joseph Smith said "All priesthood is Melchizedek". He also said it is “after the order of the Son of God, and all other priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same and are held, controlled, and directed by it. “ (Joseph Smith.) If the Aaronic priesthood is part of the Melchizedek priesthood, why is the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on us again when we become elders? I have heard a few people claim that earlier in the history of the church (1921 - 1957) when a person became an elder the Melchizedek priesthood was not conferred on a person when he was ordained an elder (or at least the word "confer" was not used), he was just ordained an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. This actually makes some sense if all priesthood is Melchizedek. 2. "On the 3rd of June, the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders (History of the Church Vol 1 p 175) Why would elders need to have the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them? The definition of priesthood seemed very confusing during the earlier days of the church. It wasn’t confusing to the Lord because, for what I would presume is a very good and logical reason, he sent John the Baptist to restore and confer the Aaronic Priesthood, and Peter, James and John to restore and confer the Melchizedek Priesthood. This means that, at least in God’s mind, the two priesthoods differ enough from one another in range of authority and power to require two separate conferrals of priesthood power. But there is no doubt that John the Baptist was commissioned and sent to confer the lesser Aaronic Priesthood by someone (God) who held the presiding Melchizedek Priesthood authority and power. I believe all the prophet Joseph Smith is saying is that as long as the Melchizedek Priesthood is presiding the Aaronic Priesthood is subsumed within and is a less empowered extension of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is why a an elder is empowered to do anything an Aaronic Priesthood holder can do but Aaronic Priesthood holders cannot perform many of the duties of the Melchizedek Priesthood, such as preside over the entire Church. Put simply, if the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood were truly two separate and discrete priesthood’s, one couldn’t preside over the other. The mere fact that the Melchizedek Priesthood presides over the Aaronic Priesthood clearly demonstrates that the two form one cohesive organization. Edited February 4, 2021 by teddyaware
CV75 Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 11 hours ago, JAHS said: 1. Joseph Smith said "All priesthood is Melchizedek". He also said it is “after the order of the Son of God, and all other priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same and are held, controlled, and directed by it. “ (Joseph Smith.) If the Aaronic priesthood is part of the Melchizedek priesthood, why is the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on us again when we become elders? I have heard a few people claim that earlier in the history of the church (1921 - 1957) when a person became an elder the Melchizedek priesthood was not conferred on a person when he was ordained an elder (or at least the word "confer" was not used), he was just ordained an elder in the Melchizedek priesthood. This actually makes some sense if all priesthood is Melchizedek. 2. "On the 3rd of June, the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders (History of the Church Vol 1 p 175) Why would elders need to have the Melchizedek priesthood conferred on them? The definition of priesthood seemed very confusing during the earlier days of the church. I think it means that the Aaronic Priesthood is a subset, or a partial portion of, the Melchizedek Priesthood and so is conferred separately. Today, offices define the ordained scope of authority within those portions for organizational and administrative purposes in the saving work of the Church. I think the term “elder” in 1831 was used rather broadly, as was “apostle,” for missionaries and others under assignment from the First Elders of the Church, and neither of these uses were defined at that time as they were several years later in 1835 (D&C 107). 2
JLHPROF Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 54 minutes ago, CV75 said: Today, offices define the ordained scope of authority within those portions for organizational and administrative purposes in the saving work of the Church. Interesting statement and I agree (mostly). The office is a specific calling, not a higher priesthood ordination. An Elder and a High Priest both hold the Melchizedek priesthood, they just have different callings and keys to exercise. The same for a Deacon, Teacher, and Priest. They all hold the Aaronic priesthood, regardless of office. We only have each priesthood conferred once, even if we progress through the offices. Which means an Elder holds the same priesthood as a High Priest. A Deacon the same as a Priest. They just have different portions they are permitted to operate under. Surprisingly, this is something I only came to realize a few years ago. It should have been evident.
CV75 Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Interesting statement and I agree (mostly). The office is a specific calling, not a higher priesthood ordination. An Elder and a High Priest both hold the Melchizedek priesthood, they just have different callings and keys to exercise. The same for a Deacon, Teacher, and Priest. They all hold the Aaronic priesthood, regardless of office. We only have each priesthood conferred once, even if we progress through the offices. Which means an Elder holds the same priesthood as a High Priest. A Deacon the same as a Priest. They just have different portions they are permitted to operate under. Surprisingly, this is something I only came to realize a few years ago. It should have been evident. Yes, there is really no such things as priesthood ordination: we are ordained to offices, not priesthood (so "priesthood ordination" is really short-hand for "ordination to priesthood office", but can lead to some confusion between priesthood and office). The priesthood, on the otehr hand, is conferred upon us (while offices are not). 1
JLHPROF Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 59 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yes, there is really no such things as priesthood ordination: we are ordained to offices, not priesthood (so "priesthood ordination" is really short-hand for "ordination to priesthood office", but can lead to some confusion between priesthood and office). The priesthood, on the otehr hand, is conferred upon us (while offices are not). Interesting way of phrasing it. But I agree. We either hold the Melchizedek priesthood or we don't. Everything else is just calling & assigned keys.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, CV75 said: Yes, there is really no such things as priesthood ordination: we are ordained to offices, not priesthood (so "priesthood ordination" is really short-hand for "ordination to priesthood office", but can lead to some confusion between priesthood and office). The priesthood, on the otehr hand, is conferred upon us (while offices are not). Saying there is no such thing as priesthood ordination while going on to say priesthood ordination is short-hand for ordination to priesthood office rubs my ears the wrong way, making them itchy, so I try to avoid saying things like that. But overall I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I would just rather say we receive the priesthood by receiving those who have had the priesthood conferred upon them whether or not they confer the priesthood upon us, which when they do they do so by ordaining us (or some others of us) to an office of the priesthood. I like having multiple offices. I have 5 now, not counting my office(s) at my home and where I work at my secular job(s).
CV75 Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: Saying there is no such thing as priesthood ordination while going on to say priesthood ordination is short-hand for ordination to priesthood office rubs my ears the wrong way, making them itchy, so I try to avoid saying things like that. But overall I think I agree with the gist of what you are saying. I would just rather say we receive the priesthood by receiving those who have had the priesthood conferred upon them whether or not they confer the priesthood upon us, which when they do they do so by ordaining us (or some others of us) to an office of the priesthood. I like having multiple offices. I have 5 now, not counting my office(s) at my home and where I work at my secular job(s). The conferral of the priesthood comes before the ordination to office, when offices are used. In ancient times, it often seems it only went so far as conferral (D&C 84:6-17). The priesthood can also be "confirmed" upon an ancestor for automatic transfer to his lineage instead of "conferred" (D&C 84:18). In modern times we have clearly delineated offices (appendages to the restored priesthoods which must first be conferred -- D&C 84:29, 30, 109), and we do not confer the priesthood without subsequently ordaining to office.
JLHPROF Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: The conferral of the priesthood comes before the ordination to office, when offices are used. In ancient times, it often seems it only went so far as conferral (D&C 84:6-17). The priesthood can also be "confirmed" upon an ancestor for automatic transfer to his lineage instead of "conferred" (D&C 84:18). In modern times we have clearly delineated offices (appendages to the restored priesthoods which must first be conferred -- D&C 84:29, 30, 109), and we do not confer the priesthood without subsequently ordaining to office. Not always in modern times. Sometimes priesthood has been conferred without restriction of office. D&C 13:1 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. Nowhere does it indicate what Aaronic office they held subsequent to this conferral. Were they Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Bishops, High Priests of Aaron as in the OT. They held all the Aaronic Priesthood but weren't restricted to an office. The progressive timeline of restoration of keys of the Apostleship over the course of years is likewise fascinating. Edited February 4, 2021 by JLHPROF
Nofear Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 4 hours ago, CV75 said: I think it means that the Aaronic Priesthood is a subset, or a partial portion of, the Melchizedek Priesthood and so is conferred separately. Today, offices define the ordained scope of authority within those portions for organizational and administrative purposes in the saving work of the Church. I think the term “elder” in 1831 was used rather broadly, as was “apostle,” for missionaries and others under assignment from the First Elders of the Church, and neither of these uses were defined at that time as they were several years later in 1835 (D&C 107). AS CV75 says. Somebody with the Melchizedek Priesthood who never had the Aaron Priesthood conferred upon him can nonetheless officiate in all Aaronic Priesthood ordinances.
longview Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 1 hour ago, Nofear said: AS CV75 says. Somebody with the Melchizedek Priesthood who never had the Aaron Priesthood conferred upon him can nonetheless officiate in all Aaronic Priesthood ordinances. With the added caveat of the proper "jurisdiction" (or presiding authority) within units of the Church. Someone from a Cedar, Utah Ward can NOT "nilly willy" confer/ordain a person who resides outside the Ward or Stake.
Ahab Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 37 minutes ago, longview said: With the added caveat of the proper "jurisdiction" (or presiding authority) within units of the Church. Someone from a Cedar, Utah Ward can NOT "nilly willy" confer/ordain a person who resides outside the Ward or Stake. Someone from a Cedar, Utah Ward can NOT "nilly willy" confer/ordain a person who resides INSIDE the Ward or Stake, either. Authorized servants of God don't do things like that in a "nilly willy" fashion. 1
CV75 Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Not always in modern times. Sometimes priesthood has been conferred without restriction of office. D&C 13:1 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. Nowhere does it indicate what Aaronic office they held subsequent to this conferral. Were they Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Bishops, High Priests of Aaron as in the OT. They held all the Aaronic Priesthood but weren't restricted to an office. The progressive timeline of restoration of keys of the Apostleship over the course of years is likewise fascinating. I define "modern" as after D&C 107 and which carried through today, which was several years after D&C 13 I don't think JS and OC had offices in connection with D&C 13 , just as the sons of Aaron and Levi in the OT (that I know of, anyway -- they had assignments and courses, etc.). It seems that there needed to be a restored Church organization (keys of presidency) before offices were useful. I don't think that necessarily means that the modern offices replicated those in the primitive church, but that the rights to preside were restored with the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon JS and OC. 1
JLHPROF Posted February 4, 2021 Posted February 4, 2021 37 minutes ago, CV75 said: It seems that there needed to be a restored Church organization (keys of presidency) before offices were useful. That's another interesting concept. You are making me think today. Perhaps certain offices are only necessary within certain organizations - Church, Temple, Council of Gods, etc. Outside a specific organization - just priesthood. 1
Ahab Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 1 hour ago, CV75 said: I define "modern" as after D&C 107 and which carried through today, which was several years after D&C 13 I don't think JS and OC had offices in connection with D&C 13 , just as the sons of Aaron and Levi in the OT (that I know of, anyway -- they had assignments and courses, etc.). It seems that there needed to be a restored Church organization (keys of presidency) before offices were useful. I don't think that necessarily means that the modern offices replicated those in the primitive church, but that the rights to preside were restored with the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood upon JS and OC. Keys are for a purpose, like to seal in heaven whatever is sealed on Earth by the use of that key, and to gather Israel, with that key. Priesthood offices are for purposes too, like to pass the sacrament or bless the sacrament or to baptize a person. And which was it that was restored first? Keys or offices? JS and OC were first ordained to the office of priest by John (the Baptist)? Did John have any keys as a priest of the Aaronic order? If so, what were they for? Did he give JS and OC any keys? If so, which came first, their ordination to the office of priest or the conferral of the keys that John had? And what did Peter, James and John (the apostle) do first? Give JS and OC their keys or ordain them to the office of elder?
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ahab said: which was it that was restored first? Keys or offices? JS and OC were first ordained to the office of priest by John (the Baptist)? No, they weren't. Keys but no office. Quote what did Peter, James and John (the apostle) do first? Give JS and OC their keys or ordain them to the office of elder? Any office is speculation, but it wasn't Elder although we often say the Apostleship. But not all the Apostolic keys. Edited February 5, 2021 by JLHPROF
CV75 Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: That's another interesting concept. You are making me think today. Perhaps certain offices are only necessary within certain organizations - Church, Temple, Council of Gods, etc. Outside a specific organization - just priesthood. That's how I see it -- the Church of the Firstborn, for example, may have entirely different offices, or none at all. 1
CV75 Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 43 minutes ago, Ahab said: Keys are for a purpose, like to seal in heaven whatever is sealed on Earth by the use of that key, and to gather Israel, with that key. Priesthood offices are for purposes too, like to pass the sacrament or bless the sacrament or to baptize a person. And which was it that was restored first? Keys or offices? JS and OC were first ordained to the office of priest by John (the Baptist)? Did John have any keys as a priest of the Aaronic order? If so, what were they for? Did he give JS and OC any keys? If so, which came first, their ordination to the office of priest or the conferral of the keys that John had? And what did Peter, James and John (the apostle) do first? Give JS and OC their keys or ordain them to the office of elder? According to D&C 13: 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I (1)aconfer the bPriesthood of Aaron, which holds the (2) ckeys of the ministering of dangels, and of the gospel of erepentance, and of fbaptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the gsons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in hrighteousness. Keys were restored first; there is no ordination to office involved at this juncture, offices were defined a few years later through a separate revelation. Yes, John did have the keys as defined above, which are enumerated (footnotes d, e , f). John gave JS and OC these keys through conferral, but no ordination to office. Peter, James and John followed this same order: conferral and the keys that came with it, but no office (these too were defined a few years later through a separate revelation).
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 40 minutes ago, CV75 said: That's how I see it -- the Church of the Firstborn, for example, may have entirely different offices, or none at all. Well we know of one - King and Priest. 1
Ahab Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 19 hours ago, CV75 said: According to D&C 13: 1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I (1)aconfer the bPriesthood of Aaron, which holds the (2) ckeys of the ministering of dangels, and of the gospel of erepentance, and of fbaptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the gsons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in hrighteousness. Keys were restored first; there is no ordination to office involved at this juncture, I would say no office was mentioned, specifically, but based on how we are ordained I would say they were probably ordained in the same way, first to an office before they were given keys that applied to their office. The Priesthood of Aaron is most likely referring to the office of priest of the Aaronic order. 19 hours ago, CV75 said: offices were defined a few years later through a separate revelation. Clarification is what I would say that was, while detailing all of the offices and duties of the Aaronic and then the greater Melchizedek order. 19 hours ago, CV75 said: Yes, John did have the keys as defined above, which are enumerated (footnotes d, e , f). John gave JS and OC these keys through conferral, but no ordination to office. Peter, James and John followed this same order: conferral and the keys that came with it, but no office (these too were defined a few years later through a separate revelation). Joseph was called the first elder of this dispensation, so I take that as evidence that when Peter, James and John conferred the priesthood upon him they ordained him to the office of elder. With the keys of the Melchizedek order he could then ordain himself and anyone else to any office of that order with each office responsible for particular duties associated with that office. “The Priesthood in general is the authority given to man to act for God. Every man ordained to any degree of the Priesthood has this authority delegated to him. “But it is necessary that every act performed under this authority shall be done at the proper time and place, in the proper way, and after the proper order. The power of directing these labors constitutes the keys of the Priesthood. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-14-priesthood-organization?lang=eng
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Ahab said: I would say no office was mentioned, specifically, but based on how we are ordained I would say they were probably ordained in the same way, first to an office before they were given keys that applied to their office. The Priesthood of Aaron is most likely referring to the office of priest of the Aaronic order. Sorry, I don't see any evidence to support that theory. They had priesthood and keys conferred upon them but were ordained to no office.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Well we know of one - King and Priest. We are already priests, or at least most of us are here who have been ordained to an office of the priesthood. I wonder when I will be called to be a king? Hmm. I think it will be nice to be a king.
JLHPROF Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Ahab said: We are already priests, or at least most of us are here who have been ordained to an office of the priesthood. I wonder when I will be called to be a king? Hmm. I think it will be nice to be a king. Not this kind of priest. This refers to the promises of the initiatory.
Ahab Posted February 5, 2021 Posted February 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Sorry, I don't see any evidence to support that theory. They had priesthood and keys conferred upon them but were ordained to no office. Youi just repeated yourself, so, okay, I will just repeat myself too. I would say no office was mentioned, specifically, but based on how we are ordained I would say they were probably ordained in the same way, first to an office before they were given keys that applied to their office. The Priesthood of Aaron is most likely referring to the office of priest of the Aaronic order.
Recommended Posts