Is the Aaronic Priesthood legit?

[CornDodger]

I’ve been looking for a long time to pinpoint the origins of what we call the priesthood of Aaron, with original sources. No doubt it’s “biblical.”

However, it’s interesting to me that all of the details around the Aaronic priesthood ONLY stem from one of the 4 known authors of the Pentateuch (5 Books of Moses: Gen, Exo, Lev, Num, Deut), and that author was the LAST of the writers (the “Priestly” P source), sometime around 5th-6th century BCE, long after Lehi had already left Jerusalem.





Here’s a discussion where I explore the details of this a little more, and show my work with visuals and lots of citations.

Let me know what you guys think. Conspiracy theory? Or something to seriously consider?

[Dave62]

Hell, yes. I use it every day. By the way, as soon as I see 'BCE' I usually stop reading.

[ransomme]

There are many spiritual parallels between the CoJCoLDS and the ancient Israelites and the Lehites, especially apostasy and looking beyond the mark. I think that the natural man in us all gravitates towards observing religion liturgically rather than simply following Christ, which requires more action and devotion. Liturgy makes us feel like we are doing something. Perhaps its appeal is that it is more measurable and tangible, that people like routine, that people prefer to plan (vs be guided by the spirit), etc. Don't get me wrong, liturgy has its place to remind and teach us, but we make idols of it.

One thing though is absence of evidence doesn't mean that there isn't something behind the Levitical Priesthood. Levitical priesthood as we are told is still only a portion of the Priesthood, as there is only one Priesthood. Joseph put it this way, "All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the Prophets had the Melchizedeck Priesthood and was ordained by God himself." (5 January 1841, Nauvoo, Illinois - William Clayton’s Private Book)

That said, my understanding of Priesthood is one of these things that has definitely been evolving and I think deepening since I began to act more and be acted upon less. I have wondered why gifts of the Spirit and powers of the priesthood are so similar. It is interesting that one needs to "receive the Spirit" and "receive the Priesthood". Add to that, that Preisthood is not power it is authority, and "That 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 121:36) Is it a coincidence that we only keep the Spirit with us based on our righteousness as well? It is not spelled out explicitly that way, but the harmony is undeniable.

"If a man gets the fullness of God [""fullness of the priesthood"" in the published vision] he has to get [it] in the same way that Jesus Christ obtain(ed] it and that was by keeping all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." - (228) Ibid., p. 213.

What is the Priesthood? I think of it like a neighbor-hood, which is an association or order of neighbors, therefore a priest-hood, is an association or order of priests. So the Priesthood is not a power, in and of its self, it is an order. The rights of the priesthood are the authority to act in the name of God. That authority is fueled by righteousness and faith. The power is just an acknowledgment of our righteousness and God's authority that He shares with us. They are designed to bring us into God's order. And the "power" of the priesthood relies on the honor and glory of God.

The order of the priesthood is not just an order of priests. The order is the principles and ordinances, God's patterns that we follow. These are the rules of the Plan of Salvation, that are in accordance with Eternal principles (ie the Law, Justice, and Mercy), the things that bring us closer to God, and that make us more like God (the Fulness of the Priesthood is the Fulness of God).

[Niemand]

Hell, yes. I use it every day. By the way, as soon as I see 'BCE' I usually stop reading.

Heaven, yes, surely? Agree about BCE, an utterly self-contradictory and smarmy little abbreviation.

[Niemand]

Are you talking about the Aaronic Priesthood as described in the Torah or the Aaronic Priesthood as practised by the Restoration Movements? Or both. Important distinction.

It should be remembered that Aaron himself was far from perfect. He was behind the Golden Calf or involved with it, probably a version of Apis which the Hebrews had brought out of Egypt with them.



But as I reminded people who were laughing about the Golden Calf in Sunday School, we really aren't that far from it still, and I don't mean just Hindus etc. - Wall Street has its metal idol, and many people worship Wall Street in turn, including the leaders of the LDS who lodge a lot of their money there.



Perhaps the two things we can get out of this are that the Aaronic priesthood can have a tendency to revert/devolve to non-Gospel elements, and that it has a materialistic bent.

[ransomme]

Are you talking about the Aaronic Priesthood as described in the Torah or the Aaronic Priesthood as practised by the Restoration Movements? Or both. Important distinction.

It should be remembered that Aaron himself was far from perfect. He was behind the Golden Calf or involved with it, probably a version of Apis which the Hebrews had brought out of Egypt with them.



But as I reminded people who were laughing about the Golden Calf in Sunday School, we really aren't that far from it still, and I don't mean just Hindus etc. - Wall Street has its metal idol, and many people worship Wall Street in turn, including the leaders of the LDS who lodge a lot of their money there.



Perhaps the two things we can get out of this are that the Aaronic priesthood can have a tendency to revert/devolve to non-Gospel elements, and that it has a materialistic bent.

I don't think that they made the golden calf randomly. This is the best explanation that I have seen. The calf was actually an attempt to worship YHVH via an idol.

https://thelunchisfree.com/2017/04/26/finding-kolob/

[Redpilled Mormon]

Man, I really love all the Hemlock Knots vids. This was another game-changer for me. Completely changes the way I view the Old Testament, as well as the original Aaronic Priesthood. And if it was fake and a power grab way back then, what does that mean for the modern day restoration/invention of Aaronic priesthood?

[Thinker]

I’ve been looking for a long time to pinpoint the origins of what we call the priesthood of Aaron, with original sources. No doubt it’s “biblical”…

Interesting!
Good discussion - thanks for sharing it.
I hadn’t realized so much evidence that basically Aaron supposedly was Moses’s brother & his “priesthood” - were added so much later - both anciently & with the founding of the lds church.

A couple things that I’ve realized:
1) Joshua (& possibly with some input in plans by Aaron before he died) did like a 180 turn around from “Thou shalt not kill, not steal etc” to MASSIVE genocidal killings & stealing the lands Israel. They, like Paul & BY seemed to drastically alter the religions. In studying Christian origins, I’ve come to understand many corrupt traditions & the need to decipher truth from error.

2) A lot of rituals - like the priesthood - remind me of a board game like monopoly in which many fool themselves into thinking the symbols are the actual things - & they miss the mark. It’s not without good though. Eg., men tend to need some specific “assignments” to serve - which lds priesthood fills. Women generally do it more naturally - especially in mothering. Still, when it comes to a strong foundation of truth, it’s good to realize how it really works - on principles of righteousness.

[cab]

The calf was actually an attempt to worship YHVH via an idol.

Kind of like how we think we’re worshipping Jesus and the Father when we are actually worshiping “the true church”, our leaders, or our fine sanctuaries.
Broad is the way.

[Redpilled Mormon]

The calf was actually an attempt to worship YHVH via an idol.

Kind of like how we think we’re worshipping Jesus and the Father when we are actually worshiping “the true church”, our leaders, or our fine sanctuaries.
Broad is the way.

Some say the best way to worship the Lord is to kneel down and kiss the feet of the cardboard cutout of our blessed prophet Nelson.

[Thinker]

...It should be remembered that Aaron himself was far from perfect. He was behind the Golden Calf or involved with it, probably a version of Apis which the Hebrews had brought out of Egypt with them.



But as I reminded people who were laughing about the Golden Calf in Sunday School, we really aren't that far from it still, and I don't mean just Hindus etc. - Wall Street has its metal idol, and many people worship Wall Street in turn, including the leaders of the LDS who lodge a lot of their money there.



Perhaps the two things we can get out of this are that the Aaronic priesthood can have a tendency to revert/devolve to non-Gospel elements, and that it has a materialistic bent.

Isn’t it “aaronic”?
https://youtu.be/Jne9t8sHpUc

[CornDodger]

as soon as I see 'BCE' I usually stop reading.

What an interesting strategy in the pursuit of knowledge. How's it working for you?

[CornDodger]

Are you talking about the Aaronic Priesthood as described in the Torah or the Aaronic Priesthood as practised by the Restoration Movements? Or both. Important distinction.

Both. Just exploring the idea of where it came from, recently as well as anciently. Obviously it's ancient (just not as ancient as we assume). In more recent years, it was not part of the records of the restoration until about 1835, when the story was literally written into 2nd half of D&C 27.

[CornDodger]

Man, I really love all the Hemlock Knots vids.

Thanks!

...if it was fake and a power grab way back then, what does that mean for the modern day restoration/invention of Aaronic priesthood?

That's up to the individual, but I think it confirms that human nature (described as "an enemy to God" in Mosiah 3:19) is always at play, even during intense times of restoration and trying to do what's right. Many "do stumble" because of the records being altered. Makes one really think long and hard about the need for Lehi to grab a different set of scriptures (not in circulation) before heading out: the brass plates.

[CornDodger]

I’ve been looking for a long time to pinpoint the origins of what we call the priesthood of Aaron, with original sources. No doubt it’s “biblical”…

Interesting!
Good discussion - thanks for sharing it.

All good insights. We need to recall that the Levites were power-hungry, genocidal, conspiring people historically. In many ways, they remind me of th Danites in their violent zeal. They seemed to be butt-hurt for not getting a piece of the action in the land divisions, and were largely untrusted by the other tribes. The idea that Moses and Aaron were A) brothers and B) both Levites was a development that came long after the original stories of Moses had circulated. King David's assigned priests were Abiathar (Israel, north) and Zadok (Judah, south) who each claimed to be direct descendants of Moses and Aaron respectively. They fought like little b****es, as did their successors. There was a BIG need to use the official written biblical stories to justify power, control and monetary/property claims. So... they did.

[Luke]

Problem for this narrative is that Joseph Smith clearly taught a lot of things in line with what the Bible says (and furthermore, so do the revelations that he received).

[CornDodger]

Problem for this narrative is that Joseph Smith clearly taught a lot of things in line with what the Bible says (and furthermore, so do the revelations that he received).

Correct. Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon and others whole-heartedly believed in the Bible's divinity, including the parts about the Levitical High Priesthood (which doesn't resemble anything at all the Melchizedek order). Of course they wanted to weave the ancient protocols into the modern theologies, because it made sense to them. Most people back then also believed that Moses wrote the 5 books of Moses, which is impossible on dozens of accounts. They simply didn't know what we know now regarding the records' origins and how the narratives evolved over time. I think had they used the Book of Mormon more for their theology, they'd be MUCH better off.

IMO, there's a good reason why nobody in the Book of Mormon knew about the Aaronic priesthood. The legend simply didn't exist until long after Lehi left Jerusalem.

[XEmilyX]

I'm curious why everyone comments on others posts or threads but not much on mine. I find this kidof ironic that people would ignore a message from the lord and argue if something like this is well real or whatever this thread is about. Am I nuts to you? Is it a demon? Is It father? Am I making it up? I mean it feels like you're nice to me but I can't get anyone to comment on my stuff usually. Am I not smart enough to have a conversation with? Do I sound stupid? Everyone here is like a scriptorian to me and I fell like no matter what I do, even get a message from the lord people are like what? Maybe I'll leave it alone. Demon? Evil? Like Denver snuffer? Thinks their great or something? She's nice so I'll leave it. I don't get it. Anyway, sorry for my random comment. Just curious.

[Niemand]

as soon as I see 'BCE' I usually stop reading.

What an interesting strategy in the pursuit of knowledge. How's it working for you?

I've got to admit it tends to prejudice me against a piece of writing a lot of the time, especially if it is about the New Testament. I think BCE/CE is a bit hypocritical - trying to avoid Christ, but using a dating system based on his life. There is nothing else "Common Era" fits.

But yes, I have read quite a few books with it in. Universities require it now.

I notice Jehovah's Witnesses use it, which is odd.

[Niemand]

I'm curious why everyone comments on others posts or threads but not much on mine. I find this kidof ironic that people would ignore a message from the lord and argue if something like this is well real or whatever this thread is about. Am I nuts to you? Is it a demon? Is It father? Am I making it up? I mean it feels like you're nice to me but I can't get anyone to comment on my stuff usually. Am I not smart enough to have a conversation with? Do I sound stupid? Everyone here is like a scriptorian to me and I fell like no matter what I do, even get a message from the lord people are like what? Maybe I'll leave it alone. Demon? Evil? Like Denver snuffer? Thinks their great or something? She's nice so I'll leave it. I don't get it. Anyway, sorry for my random comment. Just curious.

I've commented on some of your stuff elsewhere. Your last message had a lot to take in, and I'll probably have to read it a couple of times.

[Dave62]

as soon as I see 'BCE' I usually stop reading.

What an interesting strategy in the pursuit of knowledge. How's it working for you?

Very well, actually. It helps weed out the woke Christophobes.

[Redpilled Mormon]

I'm a bit slow today... what is BCE and what is the significance of using it? I just assumed it was a misspelling of BC, but apparently I was wrong.

[Subcomandante]

I'm a bit slow today... what is BCE and what is the significance of using it? I just assumed it was a misspelling of BC, but apparently I was wrong.

BCE: Before the Common Era. CE: Common Era.

Used by many historians that wish to be politically correct and avoid the mention of Jesus Christ as the reason why the calendar is how it is today.

This is also creeping into Spanish publications with A. E. C. (Antes de Era Común) and E. C. (Era Común)

Others now start using KYA or BP (Kiloyears (1000 years) ago or Before Present

[CornDodger]

I've got to admit it tends to prejudice me against a piece of writing a lot of the time, especially if it is about the New Testament. I think BCE/CE is a bit hypocritical - trying to avoid Christ, but using a dating system based on his life. There is nothing else "Common Era" fits.

But yes, I have read quite a few books with it in. Universities require it now.

I notice Jehovah's Witnesses use it, which is odd.

I just use it because it become the standard and it seems to be what most people in these days. It doesn’t mean I hate Jesus or anything.

[CornDodger]

I've got to admit it tends to prejudice me against a piece of writing a lot of the time, especially if it is about the New Testament. I think BCE/CE is a bit hypocritical - trying to avoid Christ, but using a dating system based on his life. There is nothing else "Common Era" fits.

But yes, I have read quite a few books with it in. Universities require it now.

I notice Jehovah's Witnesses use it, which is odd.

I just use it because it has (arguably, of course) become the standard and it seems to be what most people use these days. It doesn’t mean I hate Jesus or anything. In fact, I think it’s flattering that the unbelievers consider Christs birth moment as the defining moment of the “common era”