The Sons Of God

When Adam gathered together his righteous posterity he blessed them, that he might bring them into the presence of God (TPJS, p. 161).  

“They looked for a city, etc., ‘whose builder and maker is God’ (Heb. 11:10).  Moses sought to bring the children of Israel into the presence of God, through the power of the Priesthood, but he could not.  In the first ages of the world they tried to establish the same thing; and there were Eliases raised up who tried to restore these very glories, but did not obtain them; but prophesied of a day when this glory would be revealed” (ibid.).

Eliases have been sent from God unto man since the beginning.  They are preparers and restorers, and point men to Christ.  Though they themselves are tried and tested while here and are vulnerable to failing, they were among the Noble and Great Ones, and have descended to the earth to test and prove others (Abr. 3:25).  

There have been continuous attempts at helping men obtain the presence of God.  Men have almost always failed to obtain what has been offered.  Perhaps there is no greater opportunity to obtain these glories than when these Eliases walk among men in the flesh.  After their deaths, however, men fall further and further from the truth.  They lose light through iniquity and through their unbelief; through disobedience and the traditions of their fathers (D&C 93:39).  As generations pass, blindness is no longer recognized, and sight into these things is no longer desired.  It is a pitiful state.  God sends more messengers to teach and redeem his children.

Some men and women have been successful in their efforts to obtain Zion.  When Melchizedek was among men, he and his people obtained peace.  They sought for Enoch and his city.  Joseph Smith's translation of Genesis 14 is fundamental in restoring an understanding of these things to those who receive his work.

“And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.

Is this "blessing" the same kind of thing spoken of above, wherein Adam "blessed" his righteous posterity that they might be brought into the presence of God?  Is it the same blessing Adam gives to Enoch at age 65, a blessing he received long after his "ordination," who thereafter walked with God 365 years (D&C 107:48-49)?  What blessing is this?

“Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.

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

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

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

Melchizedek's faith and righteousness is not common.  His life is unparalleled by men and women in our day.  He was approved of God, and received covenants from God.  God had made these same covenants with Enoch.  This order came not by man, but of God.  It came by the calling of God's own voice out of the heavens.  Melchizedek knows God, whom to know is Eternal life.    

“For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course;

“To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.

God swears with an oath to those who receive this Priesthood.  This oath does not come to recipients through the words of a book gathering dust on millions of peoples' bookshelves, but from His own voice.  Those who are after this order obtain the power of God.  They stand in the presence of God.  They do all things according to the will of God.  They are approved of him.  They obtain Heaven, and have communion with the angels of Heaven.  They become the sons of God.  

“And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.

“And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace.

“And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world;

“And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together; and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire” (JST Gen. 14:25-40).

As we take a look at a number of other passages of scripture you should look for these same elements to appear in the text.  It is startling to realize how many times these same themes and patterns show up in scriptures that we cavalierly apply to every male "Melchizedek Priesthood holder" in the church.  We're all mixed up.

God established his Holy Priesthood in the beginning.  This order of Priesthood that has been ever since the beginning will come again before the coming of the Son of Man (Moses 6:7).  The history of man, the Holy Priesthood, the presence upon the earth of men and women who walk with the God of Heaven, a Holy City, etc., are all a divine Chiasm.  That which has been shall be.  That which was in the beginning shall be in the end.  The course of the Lord is one eternal round.  

Continuity Of Organization

Duane Hunt was a Catholic priest in Salt Lake City for many decades.  His continuous interaction with the Church and its members led him to write a pamphlet refuting our claims of a great apostasy, and attempting to demonstrate that the continuity of the Catholic Church is the measure of its validity.  

Hunt argued that because of "continuity of organization," from the time of Christ until the present day, the Catholic Church is the sole repository of keys and priesthood.  Though his work is not supported by the scriptures, his reasoning is an understandable attempt to justify his own faith.  The crux of his argument is as follows: 

"The continuity of the Church means, for one thing, institutional continuity, a continuous organization, linking in physical contact the officials of each generation with those of the preceding one and back finally to the Apostles themselves" (Hunt, The Continuity of the Catholic Church, p. 4).

As he continues, Hunt makes the tempting mistake of tying perpetuity of priesthood to the perpetuity of church office, and not to righteousness.  He assumes that because a man holds office he thereby holds priesthood.  He presumes the church lives on because there is a perpetuity of office holders.  To him, priesthood can only be lost from the church when all of the office holders cease to exist.  

Latter-day Saints understand that rights to priesthood are inseparably connected to the powers of heaven, and that a man connects to that power through righteousness (D&C 121:36).  Office in the church, in fact, has nothing to do with it.  When priesthood is lost the kingdom of God is not (HC 5:256-259). 

Hunt explains to his readers that being a Catholic provides comfort and assurance that no other church can provide:

"Every Catholic is sure that no matter what occurs, no matter how much the Church is maligned and persecuted, no matter how many mistakes are made by her own representatives, even by her clergy and higher officials, the Church will continue to live.  With this no other assurance known to man can be compared.  It is unique in all all human history; it is solid beyond all dispute" (Ibid, p. 10).

If it is the apparent continuity of an institution that matters to the Lord, then Hunt has a foundation upon which to build his argument.  However, devoid of priesthood, revelation, and the Holy Ghost, continuity of organization has only been crippling and blinding to mankind.  For it has been in the comforting assurance of continuous organizations that many have found themselves at ease, and lulled away into carnal security (2 Ne. 28:21-25). 

If the priesthood of God is indeed predicated upon connecting with the powers of heaven, continuity of organization is not the comforting link the priest was hoping it was.  Indeed, continuity of organization may not be the proper standard by which any man should attempt to measure the validity of a church that claims to be the Lord's own.

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.    

John the Baptist's Authority

"And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb" (D&C 84:26-27).

God raised up John the Baptist for a specific mission.  He was Elias (JST Matt. 17:10-14).  He made straight the way of the Lord (Mark 1:3).  He preached repentance, and baptized in the river Jordan (Mark 1:4-5).  He baptized the Lord (Mark 1:9).  He was present on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses, the full account of which we have not yet received (Mark 9:4; D&C 63:21).  Christ said that, except for himself, there was no greater prophet born among women than John (Luke 7:28).  

"The lesser priesthood" was to continue with the children of Israel "until John."  This the Lord did in his wrath.  The church in the meridian of time made claims to priesthood, but John, independent of the church had authority. The lesser priesthood continued with the church, was bestowed upon men by the church, and was the authority by which they administered the ordinances and the temple rites.

When Christ questioned the chief priests and elders about John's authority, they didn't know how to answer (Matt. 21:23-27).  They hadn't given him his authority.  They falsely believed priesthood could not exist independent of their church, independent of their hands, and independent of their consent.  But God had given authority to John.  He held the priesthood independent of the church. 

How is it that the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom then upon the earth, received not his authority from those presiding in the church?  God is not confined to work within an order we presume to subject him to.  The Lord accomplishes his work in spite of men's efforts to bind him.  He established the kingdom of God through John.  The Jews of the church, including those in the chief seats, had to obey John's instructions or be damned.  Joseph Smith taught:

"Whenever there has been a righteous man on earth unto whom God revealed His word and gave power and authority to administer in His name, and where there is a priest of God - a minister who has power and authority from God to administer in the ordinances of the gospel and officiate in the priesthood of God, there is the kingdom of God" (HC 5:256).

Also,

"What constitutes the kingdom of God?  Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives His oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not" (ibid, p. 257).

"All the prophets had the Melchizedek priesthood and were ordained by God himself" (TPJS, p. 180-81).  Do you suppose Joseph Smith would include John, the greatest prophet in this statement?  Was John the only prophet for whom this was not true?  

The reason John declined to give the Holy Ghost was because it was not his mission as Elias.  His mission was to prepare the way before the Lord.  He understood that he must decrease, but the Lord must increase (John 3:30).  The Lord brought more, but John prepared the way.  John was a mighty prophet, and had the holy priesthood by "anointing" and the "decree of heaven" (HC 5:261).  He chose to work within the bounds the Lord had set, never stepping in front of the Lord.  

Alma 13, an Invitation to Understanding

Ordination is an authoritative invitation to come unto God and receive from Him.  When my father was ordained to the priesthood, he was extended an authoritative invitation to come to God and receive power.

When a man who’s been ordained fails to gain God’s approval, he is much like king Noah.  He is a man who has been “ordained” or “called,” but elects not to become “chosen” by being true and faithful.  Noah sought to rule and reign over others by “virtue of the priesthood” (D&C 121:41).  He assumed “power and influence” by virtue of the priesthood (ibid.).    

God alone controls the conferral of power.  That power has never been entrusted to any organization, but its receipt has always been predicated upon righteousness and inseparably connected to the heavens (D&C 121:36).  Said another way, power is directly tied to heaven and to righteousness, and cannot be conferred by men.   

Joseph Smith taught us this when he said:

“Behold there are many called, but few are chosen…

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” (D&C 121:34, 36).

Offices in the Church are, however, conferred from one man to another.  Those holding offices in the Church derive authority to preside and conduct affairs by “common consent” and by the “vote of that Church.”

God’s power does not come in this manner.  God may choose to give his power to any man He will.  God’s conferral of power requires neither “common consent,” nor does it require the “vote” of men.  God controls the bestowal of His power.  It cannot be “controlled nor handled” by men (ibid.).

So, for the Alma 13 doctrines it would be wise for us to put aside what we think we understand about “the Holy Priesthood,” and allow Alma, a High Priest, to teach us about the matter.  We will draw nearer to God by this approach than we will by trying to see this matter through the lens of our present misunderstandings.

The whole chapter could be studied verse by verse.  Ask yourself questions about the text that you’re not used to asking.  Look for an answer that makes sense, and that the Spirit will verify.  We will look at only a few of the statements here.

“The Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son.” (Alma 13:1).

Who is meant by “the Lord God?”  Did he really “ordain priests,” or is this to be taken figuratively?  What did Joseph Smith teach about God ordaining the prophets (TPJS)?

What is “his holy order?”  Is this the Church?  Does it belong to the Church?  Does it belong to this earth?  What is the “order of his Son?”

“They were ordained…on account of their exceeding faith and good works” (Alma 13:3)

What is “exceeding faith?”  Is this different than “faith?”  Is exceeding faith required of men who are ordained in the Church? 

“And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest” (Alma 13:6).

Here’s mention of the “holy order of God” again.  What does it say is the purpose of the teaching of those called with this “holy calling?”  Is it to help other men and women “also” enter the Lord’s “rest?”  Why “also?”  What is the Lord’s rest?  Have those who are called to this holy order necessarily entered into the Lord’s rest?  What did it mean when Moses attempted to get Israel to enter the Lord’s rest (D&C 84)?  Was he called by “this holy calling?”  What about Joseph Smith?

“Thus they become high priests forever” (Alma 13:9).

Is it significant that this ordination and high office is “forever?”  Are there others that are not forever?

“Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 13:11).

How does one become “sanctified?”  What does that mean?  Can you become this kind of a high priest without being sanctified?  What does it mean to have your garments “washed white?”

These are only a few of the verses, and a few of the questions that could be asked.  The entire chapter should be considered. 

Next we’ll look at the example of Melchizedek to explore this issue a bit further.

Ordination is an Authoritative Invitation

As an example I’ll use my father, who won’t mind me doing so. 

He was baptized a few years ago.  Following his baptism he had conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood, and was ordained a priest.  He remained active, and fulfilled his callings, and almost a year later had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon him, and was ordained to the office of Elder.  Some time after our family had gone to the temple, he was ordained an High Priest.  Each of these ordinations was accompanied by “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

There is the progression, and also the equation.  In case it wasn’t clear, that which was required of him to become an high priest in the Church was 1) activity in the Church, and 2) time.

I may be overemphasizing the point, but not much.  I don’t mean to downplay the role of worthiness, service, or commitment to the Lord in my father’s example, or in the case of anybody else.  Only the Lord knows our determination and dedication to Him.  We have a system of interviews in place that is intended to ensure only those who are keeping themselves clean receive these ordinations.  There are inevitably unsavory, and uninterested fellows who slip through the cracks and deceive men in leadership positions.  I only use this example because it brings to light a couple of important points worthy of our consideration; points that stand in contrast to the high priests you read about in Alma 13. 

My father and I have talked about this.  He’d be the first to admit that this is the formula as it’s currently laid out.  As a matter of fact, my father had been attending the same High Priests Group since before his baptism.  As a non-member, priest, elder, and high priest, he has enjoyed the company of the High Priests Group. 

When he was ordained to the office of high priest not too long ago, he went to a few of the brethren that he respects and asked them what it meant to be ordained an high priest.  They couldn’t provide an answer for him that made him feel satisfied he truly understood the ordination.  What was the significance of the change from elder to high priest then?  Did it confer the right to perform new, different, or higher ordinances?  Did a greater endowment of the gifts of the Spirit accompany that ordination?  What changed?  

This had been my experience in the past, too.  After many inquiries into the matter I decided that there were few people, if any, who might understand what is really going on.  Nobody had a valid insight for me to help dispel the confusion.

We often want to hear something new.  We think we want the mysteries.  Those who diligently seek after them shall find them (1 Ne. 10:19).  What we need first, however, is to properly understand that which has already been given to us.  Then we will have a foundation of truth upon which to build.  “If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right,” (KFD, Joseph Smith).  Beginning with a false premise will eventually lead you to a dead end.

There’s a reason few seem to understand what high priest in the Church means.  Likewise, there are few who understand what high priest in Alma 13 means.  Because the same words are used to describe both, we tend to think they’re the same.  They’re not.  They are different.  Because we think they’re the same we understand neither as we should. 

At an early point in our history we began conflating the priesthood and church office.  We have fused and confused the two.  This is not always the way it was, but the way it quickly became. 

When Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith worked together to write what is now section 20 of the D&C they explained the offices of elder, priest, teacher, deacon, and member as offices in the church (“high priest” was not a part of that original document and was added later in 1835 when the D&C was first printed).  These offices belonged to the Church, and not to the priesthood.  Even “member” is described as though it is one of those offices, and the duties pertaining to that office are laid out in that section (D&C 20: 38, 68-70).   

These offices provided order and established authority in the Church.  These offices were the authority given by which baptism was performed, the ordination of others as officers in the church was performed, and administration of the sacrament was performed (D&C 20).  The organization itself, or the entity, empowered these offices, and the offices were established by vote of the church.

One example from the life of Brigham Young illustrates this point well:

“On December 27, 1847, in Winter Quarters, when Brigham Young became president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he recorded he was ‘elected’ to the office.  The common consent, or election by church members, was the power by which the president’s office became his.  He did not believe he needed any ordination to the office, only the common consent through a sustaining vote.  He was in fact, never ordained president of the church, only elected to the position.  He explained why it was unnecessary to have anything other than a vote to ascend to the office: ‘If men are elected by this Church, it is by Election - Joseph was ordained an Apostle – but the Church elected him as a President, Prophet-Seer and Revelator – But he was never ordained to that office.’  Because a sustaining vote was all Brigham Young thought necessary to assume the president’s mantle, it was all he ever received.  If his view is correct, then any person elected to the position has all authority required by reason of the vote or consent of the members of the church.  The members consent or elect a person to the position, and the position exists through such consent.” (Snuffer, emphasis mine).

  

Now, there is a lot more that could be said about the priesthood and church office that we will not cover here.  There is a lot of informative context preceding and surrounding the writing of section 20, and other sections in the D&C, that has become available to us, and that has not been accessible since the early part of the restoration.  There is a lot of information pertaining to the restoration of the priesthood that is also important.  We will not look at that here either. 

It is important that I bring up what little I did.  These things are important to consider in order that we can get to the truth about these high priests in Alma 13.  That’s the whole reason we’ve talked about any of it.  I’m quite certain I may have caused considerable confusion to some people.  If it doesn’t taste good, spit it out.  If it’s helpful, then consider it.  Plant the seed, and let it work.  See if it produces any fruit.  That is the simple method Alma revealed to us to test the word (Alma 32).  If you begin to see some discrepancy, you begin to believe that you don’t have all the answers.  That is a good and necessary and humbling thing.  That realization will cause you to begin asking the right questions.           

Today, unlike the other ordinations we perform, ordination to the office of high priest in the Church comes to a man at a non-age-specific, leadership-selected time in his normal progression in the church,  predicated upon his continued attendance and activity (the exception to this would be when a man’s calling in the Church requires him to be a high priest – i.e. a Bishop, for example).  As with all other offices in the Church, the ordination can only take place after “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

It is apparent to me that my father was ordained to the office of high priest in the Church.  It is also apparent to me that this was something different than what we find going on in Alma 13.  We’ll take a look at that next.  Considering the text at face value, divorcing it from our expectations and prejudices, helps us learn what Alma’s message is.  It is worth our attention.  It’s an invitation to come unto Christ and to receive that which man cannot give.   

Untangling the Priesthood

A couple of people have asked that I explain what I meant when I said our use of the term “high priest” in the Church doesn’t help us to understand Alma 13.

I’d like to do that.  I don’t have the time to write as much about it as I’d like.  So we can only consider some ideas.  When we don’t understand these things we unintentionally take them lightly.  When we don’t understand the words in the Book of Mormon, we tend to take it lightly (D&C84). 

The problem goes deeper than just the issue of high priests, however.  Our understanding of priesthood in general has been bent.  At the root of it all is that when men receive a little authority “as they suppose” they begin to abuse it, and misunderstand it (D&C 121:39).  We looked at this in the Noah and Abinadi posts.  We seem to view ordination to offices in the Church as a right of passage.  We view these ordinations as stages or levels of advancement indicating our personal progression in gospel maturity. 

The system, as it is currently established, is an age-based progression through offices.  I’m not being critical of that system, but want you to keep that fact in mind as you try to piece together how that may influence your understanding of priesthood.  To be sure, order is a good thing.  We need it.  God’s house is a house of order (D&C 132:18).  But don’t let today’s order or practices undermine your ability to perceive the truth of any matter.  For instance, if all we understand about the Aaronic Priesthood is that priests are ordained at age 16, teachers at 14, and deacons at 12, we really don’t understand anything about the priesthood.  Those ages tell us nothing about priesthood, but they are a part of the church structure.  Those ages were different in the early 20^th century, and didn’t even exist in the early part of church history.  We have to separate church policies and cultural practices from our understanding of what priesthood is if we will begin to make any headway.  

In another significant way, a part of the problem is our vocabulary.  We use words that we think have a certain meaning, or that have culturally assumed a certain meaning, that distract us from obtaining a proper understanding.  Some common phrases or expressions that we hear in Church help illustrate our dilemma: 

-We’d like to thank the priesthood for blessing the sacrament. 

-How was High Priests today? 

-I’m so grateful for the priesthood, without them I don’t know how we could’ve gotten those girls all back from girls’ camp.

-Home teaching is a responsibility of the priesthood.

-As priesthood holders you are under obligation to serve others.

These statements turn the priesthood into a body of men instead of the power of God.  They also assign obligations to “the priesthood” (the body of men holding the priesthood) that are simply obligations devolving upon all of god’s children, men and women alike, irrespective of priesthood.  Without any malicious intent whatever, statements like these have the potential to pollute our minds and cloud our eyes.  We become capacitated, by and by, to thereafter hear the scriptures read to us, or to hear quotes from church leaders who correctly expound certain principles, but then so easily revert to the understanding that has been presented to us and engrained through our everyday cultural exposure to the words.

So, in response to the requests for clarification about high priests I’d like to point out a few things from church history and ask you to consider some questions about the scriptures.  If we ask the right questions we are bound to begin discovering the right answers.  Sometimes we can’t understand because we haven’t figured out what the right questions are.  Perhaps we aren’t asking any questions.  If what follows does not persuade you to come to Christ then you are free to discard it.  What will follow in the next couple of days is my understanding of things.