Moroni Finishes His Record, Part 4

Moroni wrote a "few more things" at the end of his record, after finishing his abridgment of the record of the Jaredites.  The things he wrote were intended to be of worth unto "the Lamanites" in the last days, but are beneficial to us as well (Moro. 1:4).

The first thing about which he wrote was the manner in which Christ gave his disciples power to give the Holy Ghost.  He explains that Christ called them by name and said the following words as he laid hands upon them:

"Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles" (Moro. 2:2).

These were instructions specific to the disciples and not heard by the multitude who had gathered to view the Savior.  Before the disciples went about giving the Holy Ghost, they were to call upon the Father in mighty prayer, in order that they may receive "power."  Is "mighty prayer" a part of the receipt of this power in our day?  If not, why does it seem it was of primary importance anciently?  Are we to understand the phrase "for thus do mine apostles" as also applying to our day, or just the ancient apostles?

Moroni then gives the manner in which ordination was performed in that ancient church.  He explained how those disciples, who where called "elders of the church," ordained both priests and teachers.  They first prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, and laying their hands upon them, said:

"In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end.  Amen" (Moro. 3:3).

This was the manner of ordination.  Moroni makes the point that those ordained were done so "according to the gifts and callings of God unto men" (Moro. 3:4).  The offices of priest and teacher were given to men, not according to age or duration of church activity, but according to the gifts and callings of God unto men.  How do you suppose that was determined?

These ordinations were performed by the "power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them" (ibid.).  There is no mention of priesthood here.  Why does Moroni not say instead, that these ordinations were performed "by the power of the priesthood, which was in them"?  Does ordination to church office require priesthood?  Are the offices of priest and teacher offices of the priesthood, or offices in the church?  Is this manner of ordination of priests and teachers consistent with earlier ordinations in the Book of Mormon to those same offices?

Though the reader may assume these priests and teachers were given priesthood before or at the time of their ordination, there is no mention of conferral of priesthood authority prior to their ordination.  They are merely "ordained" to be a priest or teacher.  

Our practice is to first confer the authority of the priesthood, and then ordain to an office therein, the two being connected.  Wholly removed from our tradition is that the offices to which men are ordained are actually offices within the Church, not priesthood offices.  D&C 20 makes the original intent clear, though there is quickly thereafter conflation of church office and priesthood (this also makes me think on the early disputes between Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, and others about whether or not men needed to have priesthood "conferred" as a part of their ordination to offices.  Once Heber J. Grant became president of the Church he changed the manner of ordination.  That change remained in place for decades before being changed back).  

Here then is the dilemma we find in the text.  If you choose to interpret Moroni's words through the lens of Mormon tradition, and you think you thereby understand what is going on in this ancient church, you of necessity have to choose to ignore the specifics of the verses.  You must look at it as a whole and assume it is all just the same today as it was then, even though the wording and manner are different.  You convince yourself that, "even though the wording is a little strange, I know exactly what was going on back then."  You can take that approach, OR you can read the text exactly as it stands and ask yourself whether or not you're able to discover the truth about how things were done anciently.

We will get a more accurate look into the past taking the text at its word, than by insisting it looks and sounds exactly like modern Mormonism while ignoring the details.  This idea will be continued in the next post.    

A Question About High Priests

I received the following email: 

"I was just reading an article about the ancient temple, and I was thinking about the office of high priest. Though we had discussed that our modern-day designation of that privilege was different from its historical significance, it seems to me that they (before and during Christ's day) had made a similar change. They had high priests working in the temple. Were all these people real High Priests, or was this an administrative office that was created? Were these men righteous? Did they know the Lord? Did they influence the sinful changes that were made over time in the temple rites and symbols?"

My response is this: 

I think the same thing happened then, as happened in our day.  Some of those "high priests"  may have come to know God, and others not.  Those levitical high priests, though, were office holders in an earthly order that was intended to initiate them or invite them to receive more.  This tradition or order was passed down even until the time of Christ.  It was tragically the high priest, Caiaphas, to whom Christ was delivered for judgment as a part of his sufferings.  Caiaphas' "high priesthood" meant nothing, except perhaps added responsibility to serve others, and added condemnation for his hypocrisy and rejection of the true High Priest when He was presented before him.  His office gave him no priesthood.  He sought to control others and the heavens had withdrawn themselves (D&C 121:37).    

As our Old Testament presently stands, Leviticus 21 is the first time the office of high priest shows up in Moses' writings.  It is a good example of a holy man (Moses) receiving instructions from God about the "priests" and "high priests."  It is an example of an High Priest after the Holy Order, receiving instructions about the men who were to hold offices in the church, or "congregation."  These were offices, and were not "real" high priests, as you put it.  They were real only in the sense of what they really were - i.e. offices established as part of the law.  Moses was an High Priest who spoke with God, but the others were men who'd refused to receive what Moses did.  They were given a lesser law (D&C 84:22-27).  

David Whitmer thought it was wrong to introduce the office of high priest in the Church.  He said:

"High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest" (An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 62).

  

David Whitmer assumed God's intent was to establish the kind of church we find outlined in the New Testament.  This was not the Lord's intent, however.  He also failed to realize that Joseph was trying to do something more than merely mimic the offices found in the Old Testament church.  He didn't understand that there was something more ancient and holy that God intended to restore in the end of the world (Moses 6:7).

We're now left with an Old Testament office in a New Testament church.  The revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, however, seem to indicate this is how the Lord desired the church structure to be established.  

The high priests in the Old Testament church were offices intended to pre-figure the great High Priest who was the Messiah.  Their instructions, which were established by the Lord, were all intended to testify of His role as Christ.  If you look at the patterns in their rituals and rites you see Christ.  That is why when the Lord walked on the road to Emmaus with Luke and Cleopas he expounded the scriptures unto them concerning himself, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets" (Luke 24:27).  He wanted to make clear to them what they could not see before.  He wanted to show that all of the symbols, rituals, and offices that had been put in place were to point to Him and His great sacrifice.   

The High Priests God intended to restore in our day will be established before the return of Zion.  Those High Priests are not made by the Church, nor is it an office within the Church (D&C 77:11).  The High Priests made by God become members of the church of the Firstborn (ibid.).  This is the way it was anciently and the way it is today.  That priesthood cannot be perpetuated by men from generation to generation in a church.  It comes from God.  

We live in a telestial world.  The Church is intended to bring us out of this telestial world, but it, too, belongs to the telestial world.  Its ordinations and rites are intended to invite us to receive more, to elevate our minds and inspire our hearts to search after the things of another world.  

There are different priesthoods.  What we receive from man, or in or from the Church, is telestial.  Though the term "high priest" could be used to describe both Moses and the Old Testament's presiding officers in the levitical priesthood, they are priesthoods after different orders, worlds, and glories - they are tied to different Gods.  There are three members of the Godhead, three degrees of glory, and three priesthoods.  

History has repeated itself.  The Israelites forgot they never had what Moses had, but they persisted in a course of action suggesting they thought they were to be heirs of the same salvation.  They wanted to be brought to Abraham's bosom, but not to become like Abraham.  They were given a carnal law, or a law of this world, but ended up believing that it would bring them salvation (Mosiah 12:32).

King Noah and His Kingdom, Part 4

King Noah and His Kingdom, Part 4

“For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts.

“Yea, and thus they were supported in their laziness, and in their idolatry, and in their whoredoms, by the taxes which king Noah had put upon his people; thus did the people labor exceedingly to support iniquity.

“Yea, and they also became idolatrous, because they were deceived by the vain and flattering words of the king and priests; for they did speak flattering things unto them” (Mosiah 11:5-7).

Noah called and ordained priests to replace those priests who had been ordained by his righteous father, Zeniff.  You see, Noah had priesthood; at least he thought he did.  We would say he “held priesthood.”  These new priests were lifted up in pride, were lazy, practiced idolatry, and indulged in the same whoredoms as Noah.  They were men after his heart.  Alma, about whom we read later in the story, was among them.

The leaders of the people quickly became victims of inappropriate adoration (though they themselves victimized the people), and whether or not it was something they sought after, it appears that they became quite comfortable in their positions of high status and even fed on the envious and adoring lay mass.  This happens swiftly when the king decides to let incessant, man-worship go unchecked.  Only a meek man can combat the temptation of the praise of men, especially those who fancy the idea of claiming a following.  The leader then takes delight in that attention, and indulges in priestcraft (2 Ne. 26:29). 

King Noah set himself up as a light to the people, instead of pointing to Christ who is the only true light.    He and his priests had their own distinct seats that were “above all the other seats.”  They built a comfortable breastwork from which they could speak lying and vain words to their people (Mosiah 11:11). 

What kind of a message is chocked full of lies and vanity that a body of religious people is willing to accept?   There is only one – the people love to hear that they are good, and that all is well.  “Yea, Zion prospereth.  All is well.”

Something that we ought to ask ourselves and wonder about is this: Was Noah “worthy” to consecrate new priests?  At what point does somebody’s character or behavior disqualify them from ordaining others to the priesthood?  We’ve already established that Noah was unable to please heaven.  He had already forfeited the “rights of the priesthood” (D&C 121:36).  But does a man from whom “the heavens withdraw” and who has “grieved the Spirit of the Lord” have authority to pass priesthood to others?  If yes, then what about the children of those “others?”  Can it be passed, as would a family heirloom, from one generation to the next by men who take no delight in “persuasion,” “longsuffering,” or “gentleness and meekness?”  Who have not charity and whose thoughts are filled with many things beside that which is virtuous (ibid, v. 41)?  At what point does this break down?   

Sadly, this class of priests was supported in their persistent idolatry, laziness, and whoredoms by the money of the people of the kingdom.  And thus, the lay population supported these leaders in their iniquity, so much that they too became idolatrous.  This has been Satan’s plan from the beginning – he buys things with money.  His disciples believe they can have anything in this world for it.  They really believe it! 

The root cause of this shift is pride, but also trusting in the arm of flesh.  The gradual descent downhill was so insidious that nobody from top to bottom was able to clearly perceive their own wretched state. 

Noah’s subjects are a great reminder to us of how quickly we tend to forget the messages of the prophets.  Because they forgot, they thrived on vain and flattering words that were given to them by their new leaders.  Though the scriptures taught that flattery was of the devil, they nevertheless loved to be praised in their present course, and trod down the path of iniquity, and idolatry.

“It is the mark of a false message that it relies on flattery. (See Alma 46:5; 61:4; Jacob 7:4; Mosiah 27:8; 2 Ne. 28:22)

“It is the mark of a true message that it calls for repentance. (D&C 6:9; 11:9; Mosiah 18:20; 25:22)

“Christ's message is always to "repent" and then to "come to Him." (Moroni 7:34)

“If you only need to listen to the voices of praise, and adulation which speak to you that "all is well in Zion" then you can never recognize an authentic call from the Lord to repent. Instead, like Laman and Lemuel, you will erroneously think any message that condemns your misbehavior is "sharp" or "angry" (2 Nephi 1: 26).  Yet Nephi's only intention was to seek "the eternal welfare" of Laman and Lemuel. (2 Nephi 1: 25)

“When we will only listen to vanity and praise, we are not much different than those who only wanted "smooth things" anciently. (Isa. 30: 10)

“The cure for some illness requires a knife to be used first before healing can begin. The purpose is not to injure, but only to heal” (Denver Snuffer).

The people became idolatrous.  They were placing their trust in the arm of flesh, and therefore put men between them and God.  This is a status wholly unacceptable to the Lord.  Those who trust in men are damned (D&C 76:98-101). 

Next we will look at the message that God had for Noah and his kingdom.  God sent them a message of repentance by the mouth of Abinadi, his messenger.  Hearing Abinadi’s word was the same as hearing God’s own word, for “it is the same” (D&C1:38).  He was a servant who came in the name of the Lord to declare repentance.  He preached to Noah and his people during the time of Pentecost.