Conference tecrus::mormonism

RE: Note 212.0 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,
    
    >Latter-day Saints believe that the priesthood is God's power delegated
    >to man to act in God's name. We believe that it is necessary in order
    >to administer any of the ordinances of the gospel, such as baptism,
    >giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and administering the Sacrament of
    >the Lord's Supper. It is also necessary in order to preside in church
    >matters. We believe that the priesthood must be received from someone
    >who has it to give, and that the source of this authority is God, and
    >not men.
    
    Is this teaching based solely on Latter-day writings? Paul mentions to
    Timothy that there should be different ministrations [bishops and deacons]
    within the church yet there is no references to different levels of 
    priesthoods or do you view these as the same thing?

    >There are presently two divisions of the priesthood in the Church
    >today: The lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood (sometimes referred to as the
    >Levitical Priesthood), and the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood. The
    >Melchizedek Priesthood is a superset of and includes all the powers and
    >privileges of the Aaronic Priesthood. 

    I understand the references to Hebrews 7 where both priesthoods are 
    mentioned, but I fail to find where this is describing the present 
    church and as I mentioned in 210 seems to be describing the demise of
    Levitical priesthood. Any help?

    Charlie

    This note resumes a discussion that relates to the priesthood that
    began in topic 210. (It was originally 212.1, but then I experience
    "technical difficulties" :^)
    
    Re: Note 210.9 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
>   A cursory reading
>   of the following chapters [8-10] indicates that the Levitical priesthood
>   under the old covenant, is inferior and is to be abolished by virtue of
>   a 'new and better covenant, established upon better promises' and that
>   'in that He saith, a 'new' covenant, he hath made the first 'old'.
>   Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.' In
>   10:9 it is written, 'Then He said, Lo I come to do Thy will, O God.
>   He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second.'
    
    These chapters in Hebrews shed a lot of interesting light on the
    priesthood. The author of Hebrews is trying to tell the Hebrews of his
    day that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled. Hebrews 10:9 does not
    necessarily mean that the Levitical priesthood has been abolished, but
    only the sacrifices of burnt offerings, which have been replaced by the
    shed blood of Jesus Christ, his offering being sufficient for us all.
    If you find where the priesthood itself was done away completely, as
    opposed to some of the ordinances, please show me. 
    
    One of the duties of the Levitical priesthood, prior to the coming
    of the Messiah, was officiating in these sacrifices and in many other
    ordinances stipulated by the Law of Moses. These ordinances were
    done away, but, from an LDS point of view, not the Aaronic priesthood.
    
    For example, the father of John the Baptist, Zacharias, held the
    Levitical priesthood and officiated in the temple. John the Baptist
    held the authority to baptize, which is included in the lesser
    priesthood. John testified that people should follow him who was
    to come after him, who would baptize them with the Holy Ghost (Matt
    3:11). Apparently, John the baptist did not have the authority to
    bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but Christ did.
    
    In the LDS church today, a priest in the Aaronic priesthood can
    baptize, just as John the Baptist did, as can also anyone who holds the
    Melchizedek priesthood, but he cannot bestow the Gift of the Holy
    Ghost, which may only be done by one holding the Melchizedek
    priesthood. 
    
>   There remains only one High Priest Who is Jesus Christ, made after the
>   order of Melchisedec. We who are kings and priests and are to be found
>   in Christ, can only be after this order.

    Certainly Hebrews speaks of Jesus Christ as our great High Priest,
    which he is. However, could you please show me where it says that He is
    to be the *only* High Priest after the order of Melchizedek?
    
    Witnessing of our Great High Priest,
    Rich 
        

    Re: Note 212.2 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

>   Is this teaching based solely on Latter-day writings? Paul mentions to
>   Timothy that there should be different ministrations [bishops and deacons]
>   within the church yet there is no references to different levels of 
>   priesthoods or do you view these as the same thing?

    We view these different ministrations in the church as part of the
    different levels of the priesthood. This is based primarily on
    revelations contained in the Doctrine and Covenants. 
    
    In the LDS church, the offices of the priesthood include: Melchizedek
    priesthood - High Priest, Seventy, Elder; Aaronic priesthood - Priest,
    Teacher, Deacon. Certain positions in the church are to be filled by
    those holding certain offices in the priesthood. For example, apostles
    and bishops both hold the office of High Priest in the Priesthood. A
    deacon in the church is one who holds the office of deacon in the
    priesthood. 
    
>   >There are presently two divisions of the priesthood in the Church
>   >today: The lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood (sometimes referred to as the
>   >Levitical Priesthood), and the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood. The
>   >Melchizedek Priesthood is a superset of and includes all the powers and
>   >privileges of the Aaronic Priesthood. 
>
>   I understand the references to Hebrews 7 where both priesthoods are 
>   mentioned, but I fail to find where this is describing the present 
>   church and as I mentioned in 210 seems to be describing the demise of
>   Levitical priesthood. Any help?

    See my previous reply. I'm sure you will let me know if my explanation
    was found wanting.
    
    Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants contains a revelation
    on the priesthood, part of which I have included here:
         
         There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek
         and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. 
         
         Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because
         Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was
         called *the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God*.
         But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being,
         to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the
         church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek,
         or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in
         the church are appendages to this priesthood. 
         
         But there are two divisions or grand heads -- one is the
         Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical
         Priesthood. The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of
         presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in
         the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual
         things. The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron,
         because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all
         their generations. 
         
         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. The bishopric is the
         presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of
         the same. No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the
         keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of
         Aaron. 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. 
         
         The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood,
         is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church
         -- To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom
         of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with
         the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the
         communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator
         of the new covenant. 
         
         The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood,
         is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer
         in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism
         of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the
         covenants and commandments. 
         
         (Selected passages from D&C 107)

    Rich

For those who are relatively new to the conference and might not be familar
with note 4, I thought I'd post a pointer to 4.10 which gives my thoughts
about the use of authority in the New Testament church.

Allen

RE: Note 212.3 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,
    
    RE: Hebrews 8-10
    
    >These chapters in Hebrews shed a lot of interesting light on the
    >priesthood. The author of Hebrews is trying to tell the Hebrews of his
    >day that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled. Hebrews 10:9 does not
    >necessarily mean that the Levitical priesthood has been abolished, but
    >only the sacrifices of burnt offerings, which have been replaced by the
    >shed blood of Jesus Christ, his offering being sufficient for us all.
    >If you find where the priesthood itself was done away completely, as
    >opposed to some of the ordinances, please show me. 
    
    Some of the ordinances? Which ordinances remain? The Levitical priesthood, 
    as I understand it, was instituted to officiate over these ordinances 
    within the Temple. Take away the ordinances, and what need have we of 
    Levitical priests? 

    >One of the duties of the Levitical priesthood, prior to the coming
    >of the Messiah, was officiating in these sacrifices and in many other
    >ordinances stipulated by the Law of Moses. These ordinances were
    >done away, but, from an LDS point of view, not the Aaronic priesthood.
    
    Yet it is written:

       "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood,
        [for under it the people received the law], what further
        need was there that another priest should rise after the
        order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order
        of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed [from Aaron,
        according to law, to Judaic], there is made of necessity 
        a change also of the law.
        
        For He of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another
        tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the alter.
        For it is evident that our LORD sprang from the tribe of Judah;
        of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
        And it is yet far more evident; for that after the similitude
        of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest. Who is made
        not after the [Levitical] law of a carnal commandment, but 
        after the power of an endless life.

        For He testifieth, 'Thou [Jesus] art a priest forever after
        the order of Melchisedec.' For there is verily a disannulling
        [a doing-away with] of the commandment [establishing the Aaronic 
        priesthood?] going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness 
        thereof."                 Hebrews 7:11-18

    Reading the remainder of the chapter reveals the author's continued
    contrast between the 'weakness and unprofitableness' of the Aaronic
    priesthood in comparison of the eternal Melchisedec priesthood of
    Christ. I would be curious as to your understanding of just what was
    disannulled from the above. I've always read this as the whole of the
    priesthood itself.

    >Certainly Hebrews speaks of Jesus Christ as our great High Priest,
    >which he is. However, could you please show me where it says that He is
    >to be the *only* High Priest after the order of Melchizedek?
    
    Be glad to. The requirements for the Melchisedec High Priesthood were the
    following as I understand it:

       => Must not be subject to death and must have lived eternally. 
                                              [Hebrews 7:3,8,14-16]

       => Must recieve tithes, even though not of the tribe of Levi. 
                                              [Hebrews 7:4-6]
        
       => Must be appointed to the order through the oath of God and not men.
                                              [Hebrews 7:20-22]

       => Must be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
          made higher than the heavens.       [Hebrews 7:27]

       => Must minister in a tabernacle not made with human hands.
                                              [Hebrews 9:11,24]


    If you know of anyone else who fulfills that above requirements, I
    would be glad to meet him. :)

    Charlie

    RE: Charlie and Rich on Priesthood(s)
    
    Howdy,
    
    I haven't much time, but wanted to put in a few of my own random
    thoughts on this subject.  First, the Levitical Priesthood is not
    exactly synonymous (sp?) with the Aaronic Priesthood utilized in
    the modern church.  Examples of differences include: 1) the privilege
    of holding and using the Levitical Priesthood (LP) was dependent
    upon one's lineage (namely, you had to be a male of the tribe of
    Levi).  In the Aaronic Priesthood (AP), since it is an appendage
    of the Melchizedek Priesthood (MP), which has neither "Father nor
    Mother" (denoting lineage), all worthy males may obtain and use
    the AP and be ordained to specific offices therein.  2) The power
    to baptize was not included in the LP generally, but was given to
    those holding the keys to this Priesthood, i.e. direct descendents
    of Aaron (this, by the way, though it may be considered by many
    to have been a part of the LP, is really the essence of the AP,
    since there has been no change to this "order" of Priesthood--when
    (if) a direct descendent of Aaron is found who complies with the
    gospel and the requirements of worthiness to obtain the Priesthood,
    he has the *RIGHT* to the *KEYS* of said Priesthood, even today--this
    is in contrast to the "beginning of days" and "end of years"
    experienced by the LP.)  In the AP, all those who hold the office
    of Priest have authority to baptize, but not the authority to lay
    on hands.
    
    As far as similarities, both the LP and the AP are (or were) for the
    administering of outward works and ministrations.  This is a repitition
    of some of Rich's comments, and I have to go.  I will add some more
    later as time allows.
    
    Dave

RE:Note 212.7 by HDSRUS::HANSEN "O! I have slip't the surly bonds..." 
    
    Hi Dave,
    
    Welcome to the discussion.

    >In the Aaronic Priesthood (AP), since it is an appendage
    >of the Melchizedek Priesthood (MP), which has neither "Father nor
    >Mother" (denoting lineage), all worthy males may obtain and use
    >the AP and be ordained to specific offices therein.  

    How have you determined that the Aaronic priesthood is in any way
    associated with the Melchisedec Priesthood?

    >to baptize was not included in the LP generally, but was given to
    >those holding the keys to this Priesthood, i.e. direct descendents
    >of Aaron (this, by the way, though it may be considered by many
    >to have been a part of the LP, is really the essence of the AP,
    >since there has been no change to this "order" of Priesthood--when
    >(if) a direct descendent of Aaron is found who complies with the
    >gospel and the requirements of worthiness to obtain the Priesthood,
    >he has the *RIGHT* to the *KEYS* of said Priesthood, even today--this
    >is in contrast to the "beginning of days" and "end of years"
    >experienced by the LP.)  

    How is it possible to determine whether or not you are a direct decendant 
    of Aaron?

    Charlie

>    How is it possible to determine whether or not you are a direct decendant 
>    of Aaron?
 
    We are told this when we get a patriarchial blessing.  If patriarchial
    blessings have been discussed earlier in this conference then reference
    those comments.  If they have not then this might be a good time
    to start a new topic.

 >   How have you determined that the Aaronic priesthood is in any way
 >   associated with the Melchisedec Priesthood?
  
    Through latter day revelation in the Doctrine & Covenants.  I think
    this might have been discussed in note 4.  If not, it is in section
    13 and 20.  
    scott

    Re: Note 212.6 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON 
    
    Hi Charlie,
    
>   Some of the ordinances? Which ordinances remain? The Levitical priesthood, 
>   as I understand it, was instituted to officiate over these ordinances 
>   within the Temple. Take away the ordinances, and what need have we of 
>   Levitical priests? 
    
    One of the ordinances that remained was that of baptism. John the
    Baptist, who was of the Levitical lineage baptized. Also Latter-day
    Saints believe, as evidenced by verses from the Book of Moses and the
    Book of Mormon, that baptism was practiced from the days of Adam on,
    although this is not indicated in the Bible. It seems like I have
    heard of archeological evidence to this effect, as well.
    
>       Hebrews 7:11-18
>
>   Reading the remainder of the chapter reveals the author's continued
>   contrast between the 'weakness and unprofitableness' of the Aaronic
>   priesthood in comparison of the eternal Melchisedec priesthood of
>   Christ. I would be curious as to your understanding of just what was
>   disannulled from the above. I've always read this as the whole of the
>   priesthood itself.
    
    I can see where you might come to the conclusion that the Aaronic
    priesthood was disannulled. The LDS position on this is that the
    many performances and ordinances that comprised the Law of Moses
    were disannulled, but not the Aaronic priesthood. We do agree, however,
    that perfection *does not* come by the Aaronic priesthood, but by
    the Melchizedek priesthood.
    
>   Be glad to. The requirements for the Melchisedec High Priesthood were the
>   following as I understand it:
>
>      => Must not be subject to death and must have lived eternally. 
>                                             [Hebrews 7:3,8,14-16]
    
    We believe that some 'plain and precious things' were omitted from
    Hebrews 7:3. Joseph Smith indicated that it should read as follows.
         
         For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order
         of the Son of god, which order was witout father, without mother,
         without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end
         of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood
         are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.
    
    Thus the priesthood, and not the person is described as you say, in LDS
    belief. Besides, even Christ was subject to death, although he had
    power to overcome it. 
         
>      => Must recieve tithes, even though not of the tribe of Levi. 
>                                             [Hebrews 7:4-6]
    
    Ok here.
    
>      => Must be appointed to the order through the oath of God and not men.
>                                             [Hebrews 7:20-22]
    
    Ok here, too.
    
>      => Must be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
>         made higher than the heavens.       [Hebrews 7:27]
    
    This passage reads more as a description of the Great High Priest,
    Jesus Christ, but not necessarily as a description of *all* those
    who possess this priesthood.
    
>      => Must minister in a tabernacle not made with human hands.
>                                             [Hebrews 9:11,24]
    
    Same as above.
    
>   If you know of anyone else who fulfills that above requirements, I
>   would be glad to meet him. :)
    
    Do you believe that Melchizedek fulfilled all of those requirements?
    

    Re: Note 212.7 by HDSRUS::HANSEN 
    
    Some good points, Dave!
    

    Re: Note 212.8 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON 
    
>   How have you determined that the Aaronic priesthood is in any way
>   associated with the Melchisedec Priesthood?
    
    This was covered in my recent reply, which quoted D&C 107.
    
    Rich

RE: Note 212.10 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       
    
    Hi Rich,
    
    >One of the ordinances that remained was that of baptism. John the
    >Baptist, who was of the Levitical lineage baptized. 

    John's story is an interesting one. As you say, John's father, Zacharias,
    was of the tribe of Levi, however it seems that John forsook his heritage
    [as well as his family] and became a prophet and lived in the desert. 
    It was during this time that John received the revelation to 'prepare
    the way of the LORD and make His paths straight.' and to preach a baptism
    of repentance for the remission of sins [Luke 3:2-4]. When questioned about 
    his authority to baptize by some of the priests and Levites [John 1:19], 
    their statement seems to reveal that, according to Levitical standards,
    only the Christ, Elias or the prophet have authority [John 1:25] to baptize 
    [rather than it being a Levitical ordinance]. John states that his 
    authority to baptize is by a direct command of God, for the express purpose 
    of revealing the Son of God;

             "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit decending
              from heaven like a dove, and it abode on Him. And I knew
              Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the
              same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
              decending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which
              baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."   John 1:32,33   

    >I can see where you might come to the conclusion that the Aaronic
    >priesthood was disannulled. The LDS position on this is that the
    >many performances and ordinances that comprised the Law of Moses
    >were disannulled, but not the Aaronic priesthood. 

    I'm still not understanding something here. Aren't the two intrinsicly
    intertwined? To my mind, this seems analogous to disannuling all the
    civil laws of the land while continuing to maintain a standing police
    force to uphold the disannuled laws??
    
>>      => Must not be subject to death and must have lived eternally. 
>>                                             [Hebrews 7:3,8,14-16]
    
    >We believe that some 'plain and precious things' were omitted from
    >Hebrews 7:3. Joseph Smith indicated that it should read as follows.
         
    >     For this Melchizedek was ordained a priest after the order
    >     of the Son of god, which order was witout father, without mother,
    >     without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end
    >     of life. And all those who are ordained unto this priesthood
    >     are made like unto the Son of God, abiding a priest continually.
    
    >Thus the priesthood, and not the person is described as you say, in LDS
    >belief. 
     
    I'm sure that you'll understand if I respectfully decline to accept
    Joseph Smith's interpretation. Verses 1 and 2 speak specifically about
    the person, and continues right into verse 3. Notice that these three
    verses are all one sentence. Especially considering that continuing
    into verse 4 it reads;

        "Now consider how great this man was....."

    Clearly indicating [to me] that the author is speaking of the man and not
    the order. How is it understood that an 'order' would have a mother
    or father or be without decent [pedigree in the Greek]?
        

>>      => Must be appointed to the order through the oath of God and not men.
>>                                             [Hebrews 7:20-22]
    
    >Ok here, too.
    
    My statement here was that there is *no other* priest, appointed to order 
    of Melchisedec by an oath of God according to this scripture.

         "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity,
          but the word of an oath, which was since the law, maketh
          the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."
                                               Hebrews 7:28

>>      => Must be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
>>         made higher than the heavens.       [Hebrews 7:27]
    
    >This passage reads more as a description of the Great High Priest,
    >Jesus Christ, but not necessarily as a description of *all* those
    >who possess this priesthood.
    
    Wouldn't it follow that those who are of the priesthood should
    possess the qualities of the priesthood?

>>   If you know of anyone else who fulfills that above requirements, I
>>   would be glad to meet him. :)
    
   >Do you believe that Melchizedek fulfilled all of those requirements?
    
    It's my personal belief that Jesus Christ was the person, Melchisedec
    of Genesis and as such did possess all the requirements of High Priest.
    I also believe that He and He alone can fulfill the requirements of this
    priesthood.

    God bless,
    Charlie

    Re: Note 212.11 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
    The following is from the Bible Dictionary that comes at the end of the
    Holy Bible, as published by the LDS Church, and describes the LDS
    beliefs about John the Baptist: 
         
         John the Baptist. Son of Zacharias and Elisabeth, being of
         priestly descent through both parents. This lineage was essential,
         since John was the embodiment of the law of Moses, designed to
         prepare the way for the Messiah and make ready a people to receive
         him. He was the outstanding bearer of the Aaronic Priesthood in
         all history, and was entrusted with its most noble mission. 
         
         His forthcoming birth and the nature of his ministry were
         announced to John's father by the angel Gabriel (Luke 1:5-25). He
         was a child of promise, with prophesies of his mission having been
         given by Isaiah (40:3) and Malachi (3:1; cf. 1 Ne. 10:7-20; 2 Ne.
         31;4-8). He grew up in the desert until the time arrive for his
         ministry to prepare the way for the Savior. 
         
         The sign of the dove, as an emblem for the Holy Ghost, was a
         pre-appointed signal by which John knew he was to recognize that
         he had baptized the Son of God (see John 1:29-34). At the time of
         the baptism of Jesus, John saw the sign and heard the voice of the
         Father bearing record that Jesus was the Beloved Son, in whom the
         Father was well pleased (Matt. 3:13-17). He had preached and
         baptized for several months before he baptized the Savior, and
         continued to do so afterwards for several months (John 3:23-24). 
         
         At least two of those who were later to become member of the
         Twelve, John and Andrew, were disciples of John before they met
         Jesus (John 1:35-42). It is probable that others of the Twelve
         were also tutored by him (Acts 1:21-22). He watched, without
         feelings of jealousy, the waning of his own influence and the
         growth of the influence of Jesus (cf. John 3:25-26). He was shut
         up in prison by order of Herod, for criticizing Herod's unlawful
         marriage of Herodias (Mark 6:16-29). 
         
         While in prison, John sent two of this disciples to inquire of
         Jesus to reassure their faith. Many have thought this event
         reflected a lack of confidence in John's own mind. However, Jesus
         took the occasion to bear testimony of the great work John had
         done, emphasizing that he was unwavering and true (see Luke
         7:24-28). Jesus also pointed out that John had fulfilled the
         prophecy of Malachi 3:1. Jesus praised John as a prophet, saying
         there is none who was greater (Matt. 11:7-11). This greatness
         consisted of his unique privileges and the quality of his work. He
         alone was entrusted with the mission of preparing the way and
         baptizing the Savior of the world. He "did no miracle" (John
         10:41), but magnificently fulfilled his assignment in bearing
         testimony of Jesus Christ. Jesus characterized John as "a burning
         and a shining light" (John 5:35). After nearly a year in prison,
         John was beheaded at the instigation of Herodias (Matt. 14:3 ff.;
         Mark 6:17). 
         
         A vigorous preacher, John taught many principles and doctrines of
         the gospel, and filled his mission in every particular. Latter-day
         revelation confirms the biblical account and also makes known
         additional events in the ministry of John. We learn that he was
         "ordained by an angel." when he was 8 days of age, to overthrow
         the kingdom of the Jews and to prepare a people for the Lord. We
         learn also that he was baptized while yet in his childhood (D&C
         84:27-28). On May 15, 1829, this same John came to Joseph Smith
         and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehanna River near
         Harmony, Pennsylvania, and ordained these men to the Priesthood of
         Aaron (D&C 13; 27:7-8; JS-H 1:68-72). Thus his ministry has
         operated in three dispensations: he was the last of the prophets
         under the law of Moses, he was the first of the New Testament
         prophets, and he brought the Aaronic Priesthood to the
         dispensation of the fullness of times. 
         
>   John's story is an interesting one. As you say, John's father, Zacharias,
>   was of the tribe of Levi, however it seems that John forsook his heritage
>   [as well as his family] and became a prophet and lived in the desert. 
>   It was during this time that John received the revelation to 'prepare
>   the way of the LORD and make His paths straight.' and to preach a baptism
>   of repentance for the remission of sins [Luke 3:2-4]. 

    Latter-day Saints would strongly disagree that John "forsook his
    heritage", but rather fulfilled his heritage. It may well be that it
    was necessary for John to dwell in the wilderness, due to Herod's
    command to kill the infants, subsequent to Jesus' birth. His father may
    have been the Zacharias that was slain between the temple and the altar
    (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51; cf. 2 Chr. 24:20). 
    
>   When questioned about 
>   his authority to baptize by some of the priests and Levites [John 1:19], 
>   their statement seems to reveal that, according to Levitical standards,
>   only the Christ, Elias or the prophet have authority [John 1:25] to baptize 
>   [rather than it being a Levitical ordinance]. John states that his 
>   authority to baptize is by a direct command of God, for the express purpose 
>   of revealing the Son of God;
    
    These guys were corrupt in their understanding of lots of things,
    including the Savior himself. Whatever understanding they had of
    baptism and of the authority to baptize may not have been a correct
    one. I agree with you that John was divinely commissioned to baptize,
    and that his mission was to testify of the Son of God. 
    
>   >I can see where you might come to the conclusion that the Aaronic
>   >priesthood was disannulled. The LDS position on this is that the
>   >many performances and ordinances that comprised the Law of Moses
>   >were disannulled, but not the Aaronic priesthood. 
>
>   I'm still not understanding something here. Aren't the two intrinsically
>   intertwined? To my mind, this seems analogous to disannuling all the
>   civil laws of the land while continuing to maintain a standing police
>   force to uphold the disannuled laws??
    
    Some ordinances were done away and others instituted, when the law of
    Moses was fulfilled. For example, animal sacrifice was done away, but
    the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was instituted, which is presently
    administered in the church by the bearers of the Aaronic Priesthood.
    Also, the ordinance of baptism is administered by the Aaronic
    Priesthood. So we see that the ordinances of the priesthood were
    changed, but the necessity of the priesthood was not. 

    Regards,
    Rich    

    Re: Note 212.11 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,

    Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary says about Melchizedek:
         
         Melchizedek. King of Righteousness. A notable prophet and leader
         who lived about 2000 B.C. He is called the king of Salem
         (Jerusalem), king of peace, and "priest of the most High God."
         Unfortunately, information concerning him in the Bible is
         relatively scarce, being limited to Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 5:6;
         7:1-3. Mention of the priesthood of Melchizedek is given in
         several other instances, primarily in Psalms and in Hebrews.
         However, latter-day revelation gives us much more about him and
         his priesthood (see JST Gen 14:17-40; JST Heb. 7:1-3; Alma
         13:14-19; D&C 84:14; 107:1-4). From these sources we realize
         something of the greatness of this prophet and the grandeur of his
         ministry. 
         
    [Note: JST refers to the "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Holy Bible.
    Latter-day Saints typically use the King James Version of the Holy
    Bible, which contains in the footnotes the changes that Joseph Smith
    was inspired by revelation to indicate that the original meaning had
    been changed or was missing. Joseph Smith did not complete this
    "translation" of the Bible before he was killed.] 
    
    The following is the entry under the heading "Melchizedek Priesthood": 
         
         Melchizedek Priesthood. The higher or greater priesthood, as
         compared with the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. The reason for the
         name is given in D&C 107:1-3. The Melchizedek Priesthood is
         mentioned in Ps 110:4; Heb. 2:17-18; 3:1; 5:6,10; 6:20;
         7:11,15,17,21; but the Bible does not give many particulars
         concerning the functions of that priesthood, except that Christ
         was a high priest after that order. From latter-day revelation we
         learn that within the Melchizedek Priesthood are the offices of
         elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, and apostle (D&C 107), and
         that this priesthood must be present and functional whenever the
         kingdom of God is upon the earth in its fullness. 
         
         The Melchizedek Priesthood was first made known to Adam, and the
         patriarchs and prophets in every dispensation had this authority
         (D&C 84:6-17; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 180-81).
         When the children of Israel failed to live up to the privileges
         and covenants of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Lord took away
         the higher law and gave them a lesser priesthood and a lesser law.
         These were called the Aaronic Priesthood and the law of Moses. The
         Aaronic Priesthood is not a different priesthood; rather, it is
         the lesser portion of the priesthood, dealing with the
         introductory ordinances and the preparatory commandments (D&C
         84:18-28). When Jesus came, he restored the Melchizedek Priesthood
         to the Jews and began to build up the church among them. However,
         it was lost again by apostasy, and was taken from the earth. 
         
         The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored to the earth in these last
         days by the ministry of Peter, James and John, who literally came
         to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the spring of 1829 and
         conferred this power and authority upon them (D&C 27:12-13).
         Later, Moses, Elias, and Elijah gave them further keys by which
         these brethren could use the Melchizedek Priesthood in additional
         ways (D&C 110). The president of The Church of Jesus Christ of
         Latter-day Saints is the president of the high or Melchizedek
         priesthood, and by virtue of this position, he holds all the keys
         that pertain to the kingdom of God on the earth. This office or
         calling is held by only one man at a time, and he is the only
         person on the earth at that time in whom all the powers and keys
         of the Melchizedek Priesthood are functional. 

    This is what Christ meant when he told Peter that he would have the
    keys to the kingdom of heaven, since Peter function as the president of
    the Church, after Christ's ascension. The senior living apostle is the
    president of the church, in the LDS church. 
        
>   I'm sure that you'll understand if I respectfully decline to accept
>   Joseph Smith's interpretation. 
    
    Sure, I understand. Lot's of things in LDS belief hinge on the question
    of whether Joseph Smith was a prophet. If, as we say, he was a prophet,
    he could have received revelation that the original meaning of some
    passages in the Holy Bible were changed or missing. Anyway, the passage
    in Hebres makes a lot more sense to me the way Joseph Smith said it
    should be, than it reads in today's Bibles. 
    
>>>      => Must be appointed to the order through the oath of God and not men.
>>>                                             [Hebrews 7:20-22]
>   
>   >Ok here, too.
>   
>   My statement here was that there is *no other* priest, appointed to order 
>   of Melchisedec by an oath of God according to this scripture.
    
    I see what you are saying. However, as I read these passages, I don't
    think it says that. I think it testifies that, at some point, God made
    an oath and said to Jesus "Thou art a priest for ever after the order
    of Melchisedec" (Heb 7:21) and it says that the Levitical priests were
    not made priests with such an oath from God. But it does not say that
    there are no other priests according to the order of Melchisedec. 
    
>        "For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity,
>         but the word of an oath, which was since the law, maketh
>         the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."
>                                              Hebrews 7:28

    Again, I think this is a comparison between the Lord, Jesus Christ, and
    the Levitical High Priests. It does not say that there are no other
    priests after the order of Melchisedec. 
    
>>>      => Must be holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and
>>>         made higher than the heavens.       [Hebrews 7:27]
>   
>   >This passage reads more as a description of the Great High Priest,
>   >Jesus Christ, but not necessarily as a description of *all* those
>   >who possess this priesthood.
>   
>   Wouldn't it follow that those who are of the priesthood should
>   possess the qualities of the priesthood?
    
    Yes, but the passage is not a description of the qualities of the
    priesthood, but rather of *this* High Priest, our Lord, Jesus Christ. 
    
>   It's my personal belief that Jesus Christ was the person, Melchisedec
>   of Genesis and as such did possess all the requirements of High Priest.
>   I also believe that He and He alone can fulfill the requirements of this
>   priesthood.

    Interesting position! Can you provide any scriptural support for this
    belief? It would seem to be a contradiction that Abraham would pay
    tithes to a man in the flesh, Melchisedec, who was also Jesus Christ,
    many hundreds of years before Christ came in the flesh. How do you
    explain this contradiction? 

    Rich

RE: Note 212.13

    Hi Rich,

    First, let me thank you for putting in that effort on the last two
    replies. It is clear that much hinges on whether or not one places 
    his faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet.
    
>>   It's my personal belief that Jesus Christ was the person, Melchisedec
>>   of Genesis and as such did possess all the requirements of High Priest.
>>   I also believe that He and He alone can fulfill the requirements of this
>>   priesthood.

 >   Interesting position! Can you provide any scriptural support for this
 >   belief? It would seem to be a contradiction that Abraham would pay
 >   tithes to a man in the flesh, Melchisedec, who was also Jesus Christ,
 >   many hundreds of years before Christ came in the flesh. How do you
 >   explain this contradiction? 

     "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and 
      was glad. Then said the Jews unto Him, Thou art not yet fifty
      years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, 
      Verily, Verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am."      
                                                John 8:58

     By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham. It is stated in Hebrews
     that Melchisedec had neither [human] father or mother or beginning of days
     [this assumes that you can accept this as it relates to the person as
     opposed to the order :)]. Rather than being simply 'in the flesh', I 
     believe that Jesus appeared to Abram in much the same form as he appeared 
     to the men on the road to Emmaus having reentered the glorified state
     which He had before being made flesh. [John 17:5]

     Melchisedec is also called King of Righteousness and King of Salem,
     which means 'peace' and priest of the most High God [Hebrews 7:2]. 
     In 2 Peter 1:1 we read;

     "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them
      that have obtained like precious faith with us through the
      righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."

     thereby implicating Jesus, with the righteousness of God. There can
     only be one 'King of Righteousness' and the title should go the most
     righteous.

     Likewise concerning the King of Peace, Acts 10:36;

     "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching
      peace by Jesus Christ; [He is LORD of all]...."

     and in Ephesians 2:13,14a;

     "But now in Christ Jesus ye who were sometimes afar off are made
      nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, Who hath made
      the both one....."

     concerning priest;
    
     "Wherefore holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling
      consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession,
      Christ Jesus.."                   Hebrews 3:1
    
     There is, of course many such scriptures but time prevents me right
     now and I apologize for the brevity of this reply. Admittedly, I am 
     constrained to the works contained in the body of Biblical Scripture 
     and don't have the advantage of extra-Biblical revelation of the LDS 
     teaching.


     God bless,
     Charlie

    Re: Note 212.14 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON
                           
    Hi Charlie,
    
    Thank you for your note. I see where you are coming from. Certainly
    the titles attributed to Melchizedek are very similar to those
    attributed to Christ.
    
    By the way, Latter-day Saints do believe that Abraham saw Christ. But
    we believe that the references to Melchizedek refer to a separate
    person. 
    
    I'm on the road for a few days, so I won't be able to respond much,
    till I get back.
        
    Regards,
    Rich

Hi Charlie,

Since Rich is on the road, I thought I'd hop in for a moment. 

>   It is clear that much hinges on whether or not one places 
>    his faith in Joseph Smith as a prophet.

You've made an important observation, Charlie.  Also, much hinges on
whether one considers the Bible today as being the same as it was when
it was written by the inspired prophets, or whether one considers the 
Bible as having been inspired when it was written by the prophets but
having been corrupted by men down through the ages.  Along with that, much
hinges on whether one considers the Bible as the only book of scripture,
or whether one considers that God may have spoken to other nations besides
the Jews and that there could be other books of scripture.  I think that these
are difficult points for Christians to even consider, because they have been
conditioned by tradition to think of the Bible as being without error and the
only book of scripture.


>     By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham. 

We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus  was the Jehovah of the
Old Testament.  I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
this belief.  When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.


>     It is stated in Hebrews
>     that Melchisedec had neither [human] father or mother or beginning of days
>     [this assumes that you can accept this as it relates to the person as
>     opposed to the order :)]. Rather than being simply 'in the flesh', I 
>     believe that Jesus appeared to Abram in much the same form as he appeared 
>     to the men on the road to Emmaus having reentered the glorified state
>     which He had before being made flesh. [John 17:5]

We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones.  What I think I hear
you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
bones again.  I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.

Allen

RE: Note 212.16 by CLIMB::LEIGH "Blessed are the meek;"                 

Hi Allen,

>>     By Jesus' own words he preexisted Abraham. 

>We believe that prior to his birth of Mary, Jesus  was the Jehovah of the
>Old Testament.  I just posted 4.70 which gives background information for
>this belief.  When he told the Jews that "Before Abraham was, I am", we
>believe he was telling them that before Abraham was born, he existed as
>the I AM, i.e. as Jehovah.

    Yes, I agree.

>We know from Luke 24 that when Jesus appeared to the two disciples going to
>Emmaus, he had a resurrected body of flesh and bones.  What I think I hear
>you saying, Charlie, is that you believe that Christ had glorified flesh and
>bones when he appeared to Abram, then later was born of Mary and had mortal
>flesh and bones, and then after the resurrection had glorified flesh and
>bones again.  I wanted to be sure that I understood what you meant when you
>said Jesus appeared to Abram "in much the same form as he appeared to the men
>on the road to Emmaus", so I thought I'd check with you about it.

   All I can say for sure is, that we know from Scripture that Jesus had
   a glorified body of flesh and bone after having a mortal body. It's
   difficult to conclude exactly what physical form he assumed prior to 
   his earthly existance as a mortal. I did assume that it might have
   resembled his post-mortal form because of John 17:5. Here Jesus recounts 
   the fact that He was a glorified being with God the Father prior to His 
   mortal existance.

   Philippians 2:6-8 also tells us that Jesus 'emptied Himself' and 'took on
   the form of a servant' indicating that He willfully gave up His glorified
   form to become a mortal being.

   God bless,
   Charlie   

    I'm going to engage in a bit of speculation. This is *not* LDS church
    doctrine, but merely a conjecture on my part. 
    
    I suspect that Melchizedek, the great high priest, was Shem, the son of
    Noah. In studying the scriptures, it gives the ages of the patriarchs
    in those days, telling how old they were when they begat so-and-so, and
    how long they lived. Shem would have still been living when Abraham was
    around, according to my calculations. 
    
    It would make sense for Abraham to pay his tithes to Shem, who could
    have followed his father Noah as the rightful patriarch of the
    righteous who lived after the flood. As to his name, I suspect that the
    Lord may have changed his name from Shem to Melchizedek, just has he
    changed the names of Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. 
    
    Also, there is a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants, where a
    revelation is recorded that was given in 1918 to the prophet Joseph F.
    Smith, the son of Hyrum Smith, who was the brother of Joseph Smith. He
    received a vision describing how Christ visited the spirits of those
    who had died between the time of his crucifixion and his resurrection.
    He saw many of the ancient prophets there, and as he names some of
    those he saw, he says he saw "Shem, the great high priest" (D&C
    138:41). In the context of the Old Testament prophets, the great high
    priest was Melchizedek. 
    
    This idea is not original with me. It was discussed in an Ensign
    article a few years back. Also, Bruce R. McConkie discounts this theory
    in his book "Mormon Doctrine". Even so, I'm inclined to disagree with
    him, and tend to believe that Melchizedek was also the man we know as
    Shem. 
    
    Food for thought, anyway.
    
    Rich

    
    ???What happened to the previous responses in this topic?
    Particularly my response to Rich's note in .18?
    
    Charlie

I searched *.* for "Note 212" and didn't find any notes that had been moved
from this note (I did find that I had copied but not moved 212.16 and 212.17
to note 97.  I haven't deleted any replies from this note, so I don't know
what happened to them.  We did have disk problems a couple of weeks ago, and
the disk containing this conference had to be reloaded from a backup tape.
Perhaps your reply got lost then...

Allen

    Re: Note 212.19 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

>   ???What happened to the previous responses in this topic?

    Yes, too bad these notes got clobbered. I think they contained our
    discussion of the genealogies of Shem, no? Makes me wonder if other
    notes in the conference got clobbered, too.

    Rich

    
    Actually my reply to the "Let's get acquainted" note got clobbered,
    but I'm grateful because after entering it I wasn't really happy
    with it anyway.
    
    frank