Joseph Smith and the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood

[Bill the Cat]

2 observations...

The first, I'm sure has been answered, but I'm too lazy to look it up because I know Jeff Lindsey probably addressed it...

How did Joseph Smith see the face of the Father without the Priesthood?

Doctrine and Covenants

SECTION 84
18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

© source where applicable

According to Mormonism Joseph Smith did not actually receive the priesthood authority until 1829, nine years after his supposed experience with the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820.


Second, ...

Pearl of Great Price

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM 1

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

© source where applicable

So someone with Egyptian lineage can not hold the priesthood according to these passages.

Hugh Nibley, Abraham In Egypt 1981, pages 189

"Pharaoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham. (Abr. 1:25-27; above, pp. 133f.) His earthly rule was blessed (Abr. 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother."

© source where applicable

Nibley agrees that no one of Egyptian descent could hold the priesthood.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions. vols. 1-4. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957-1966, pg 169

neither would he have chosen the Prophet Joseph Smith and given him the keys of authority for the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, as he was a descendant of Joseph and of Abraham."

© source where applicable

Joseph F. Smith, the Prophet at the time, agreed that Joseph Smith was from Joseph, and specifically, an Ephraimite

http://www.nephiproject.com/Newsletter/42Chap38_2_.doc

Indeed, Joseph Smith was an Ephraimite. See D&C 113:6

© source where applicable

So Joseph was called an Ephraimite.

Scripture Verse:

Genesis 41:45&50-52

"45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah. And he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On, for his wife. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt...

50 And two sons were born to Joseph before the years of famine came, whom Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bore to him. 51 And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh, saying, For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father's house. 52 And the name of the second he called Ephraim, saying, For God has caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction." (KJV)

So, Ephraim was half Egyptian... let's repeat Nibley's words again for clarification:

Hugh Nibley, Abraham In Egypt 1981, pg 189

but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother."

© source where applicable

and the Pearl of Great Price

Pearl of Great price

Abraham 1
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,

© source where applicable

So Ephraim could not claim patriarchal lineage through his mother either as she was an Egyptian, and none of his tribe could claim patriarchal lineage nor the priesthood, including Joseph Smith, as he is claimed to be of Ephraim.

[just Johnna]

2 observations...

I have time for one, so I'll pick my hobby horse,

Second, ...

Pearl of Great Price

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM 1

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

© source where applicable

So someone with Egyptian lineage can not hold the priesthood according to these passages.

No, that's not a good summary of the Pearl of Great Price passage. See your Nibley for clarification:

Hugh Nibley, Abraham In Egypt 1981, pages 189

"Pharaoh's claim to the priesthood was invalid, because he insisted with great force that it was the patriarchal priesthood of Noah, received through the line of Ham. (Abr. 1:25-27; above, pp. 133f.) His earthly rule was blessed (Abr. 1:26), but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother."

© source where applicable

Nibley agrees that no one of Egyptian descent could hold the priesthood.

Actually, Nibley is disagreeing with that idea--this is Nibley's fabulous correction to the idea no one of Egyptian descent could hold the prieshtood.

Nibley asserts that the right to priesthood rule was patrilineal, passing from birthright son to birthright son. He points out the text says Pharoah was trying to claim a patrilinineal priesthood through his mother.

In other words, Nibley is specifically arguing against the idea of a lineal curse on descendants of Ham. He denies Pharoah was barred from the priesthood because of some kind of lineal curse--he says Pharoah had no right to the priesthood because the right to priesthood only passed to birthright sons.

Remember, in the age of the Patriarchs, the priesthood is only ordained upon birthright sons. Abraham has it because he's a birthright descendent of Shem.

(aside: My Romans teacher was irritating me last night by repeatedly saying that Abraham was just a guy, just some random guy. But Genesis 11:10-26 tells us which guy he is--the birthright descendent of Shem.)

Similarly, At the time of Moses, the Aaronic priesthood is introduced, which is ordained upon Levites. Who can hold the priesthood is always identified positively--anciently it is associated with the inherited right to rule.

A rough parallel: I'm not the King of England, but that's not because of some special curse on my father. Most people have no right to be the King of England. Being the King happens because your father was also King of England.

In Christ, we all become part of his royal priesthood, because we have entered his lineage.

At the time of the early Christian church, those called to lead and serve were ordained to the priesthood, whether or not they are of the Levitical line, both Jew and Greek.

At the time of the restoration, all worthy men of Christ's restored church are ordained to the priesthood, as promised in the Book of Revelation.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions. vols. 1-4. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957-1966, pg 169

neither would he have chosen the Prophet Joseph Smith and given him the keys of authority for the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, as he was a descendant of Joseph and of Abraham."

© source where applicable

Joseph F. Smith, the Prophet at the time, agreed that Joseph Smith was from Joseph, and specifically, an Ephraimite

http://www.nephiproject.com/Newsletter/42Chap38_2_.doc

Indeed, Joseph Smith was an Ephraimite. See D&C 113:6

© source where applicable

So Joseph was called an Ephraimite.

Yes. In fact, he's an Ephraimite who ordained four black men to the priesthood.

In the times of the Mosaic Law, an Ephraimite could not be ordained to the prepatory (Aaronic) priesthood, could not serve in the Temple. But after Christ's resurrection, lineal distinctions are done away with.

Scripture Verse:

Genesis 41:45&50-52

"45 And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnath-paaneah. And he gave him Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On, for his wife. And Joseph went out over the land of Egypt...

50 And two sons were born to Joseph before the years of famine came, whom Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bore to him. 51 And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh, saying, For God has made me forget all my toil and all my father's house. 52 And the name of the second he called Ephraim, saying, For God has caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction." (KJV)

So, Ephraim was half Egyptian... let's repeat Nibley's words again for clarification:

Hugh Nibley, Abraham In Egypt 1981, pg 189

but he could not, of course, claim patriarchal lineage through his mother."

© source where applicable

Not that Ephraim would have been claiming his patrilineal blessing through his mother anyhow.

Joseph of Egypt's marriage to Aseneth would have no effect on passing on his patrilineal birthright. Your Nibley quote backs this up--it's the father who passes a patrilineal right, not the mother.

and the Pearl of Great Price

Pearl of Great price

Abraham 1
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,

© source where applicable

right, being of that lineage with no patrilineal claim.

So Ephraim could not claim patriarchal lineage through his mother either as she was an Egyptian, and none of his tribe could claim patriarchal lineage nor the priesthood, including Joseph Smith, as he is claimed to be of Ephraim.

Joseph Smith didn't claim the priesthood through Ephraim. He was ordained by John the Baptist to the Aaronic priesthood, and ordained to the Melchizidek by Peter, James and John. Christ did away with the lineal requirements in AD 30.



The fact that blacks were almost never ordained to the priesthood from 1852 to 1978 was a temporary situation. I could offer my theories about why this was done, but they would be my theories since no reason was given. I believe in the family of Elijah Abel, God provided himself with a witness that there is no such thing as a lineal curse.

[Krusader]

Smith tended to mix the Old Testament with the New. For instance, he had people being baptized by immersion in the Name of Jesus in the BOM's Old Testament portion. Besides the fact that Smith seems to have been rather ignorant regarding the convenants, not to mention his moving from modalism to tri-theism, to polytheism, he was unable to distinguish between the dispensation of the Old Testament and the New. The Book of Hebrews clearly teaches a change in the "priesthood," and the passing away of the Old Testament Aaronic priesthood - however, Smith was apparently unable to grasp this fact, and has himself and his cousin, Cowdery, being ordained by some spirit beings claiming to be dead apostles to an Old Testament priesthood that had already been done away with in Christ.

How anybody with just a small amount of Bible knowledge can buy into this travesty is beyond me. But, none are as blind as those who refuse to see!

[Bill the Cat]

I have time for one, so I'll pick my hobby horse,



No, that's not a good summary of the Pearl of Great Price passage. See your Nibley for clarification:

Maybe not. But Nibley does not explain the middle section at all. Why was Pharaoh cursed? If it were Patrilineal, there would be no curse or the curse pronounced by Noah on Ham was transferable. There is no other reason for a curse on Pharaoh when pertaining to the priesthood other than his lineage from Ham, only an ignoring if Pharaoh could not receive it as the birthright son. Else, all 11 other of Jacob’s children, including either Levi or Judah (depending on which one had the birthright) were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood. This either makes Jesus cursed as pertaining to the priesthood or Aaron, depending on who you say had Jacob’s birthright

PGP

also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

© source where applicable

Actually, Nibley is disagreeing with that idea--this is Nibley's fabulous correction to the idea no one of Egyptian descent could hold the prieshtood.

Nibley asserts that the right to priesthood rule was patrilineal, passing from birthright son to birthright son. He points out the text says Pharoah was trying to claim a patrilinineal priesthood through his mother


In other words, Nibley is specifically arguing against the idea of a lineal curse on descendants of Ham. He denies Pharaoh was barred from the priesthood because of some kind of lineal curse--he says Pharaoh had no right to the priesthood because the right to priesthood only passed to birthright sons. .

Maybe so. I haven’t looked at Nibley’s book in quite some time. I wrote that quote down when I read it along with some others I have scattered around my study room.

Remember, in the age of the Patriarchs, the priesthood is only ordained upon birthright sons. Abraham has it because he's a birthright descendent of Shem.

Actually, I see no priesthood mentioned in the patriarchal society of Genesis. It is not until Aaron is named the High Priest in Exodus that an Aaronic/Levitical priesthood exists. Assuming for the sake of the argument that there was one, which priesthood was it? You are aware of my view on Melchizedek and why he was the description of the priesthood named after him that only 2 others (David and Jesus) are said to have been a member. All three were Priest-Kings.

(aside: My Romans teacher was irritating me last night by repeatedly saying that Abraham was just a guy, just some random guy. But Genesis 11:10-26 tells us which guy he is--the birthright descendent of Shem.)

Actually, all indications are that Teran was an idol worshipper. Also, it is suspected that Abram was the youngest brother.

Similarly, At the time of Moses, the Aaronic priesthood is introduced, which is ordained upon Levites. Who can hold the priesthood is always identified positively--anciently it is associated with the inherited right to rule.

Right. But notice that only Levites could hold that priesthood. The sin of Jeroboam was ordaining anyone other than Levites to a priesthood class. The necessity for it ended at the cross too. There is no more Aaronic priesthood. We have a much better priesthood of all believers, women included. There is also no Melchizedek priesthood to share. It belonged to Melchizedek until his death, David until His, and it belongs solely to Jesus now and forever because He is immortal.

A rough parallel: I'm not the King of England, but that's not because of some special curse on my father. Most people have no right to be the King of England. Being the King happens because your father was also King of England.

Right. But notice that only one can be King at a time. Your analogy stretches to the Melchizedek Priesthood nicely. There is but one Priest-King at a time, never more.

In Christ, we all become part of his royal priesthood, because we have entered his lineage.

Exactly, which is why there is no “additional priesthood” other than the priesthood all believers share in.

At the time of the early Christian church, those called to lead and serve were ordained to the priesthood, whether or not they are of the Levitical line, both Jew and Greek.

Can you cite some early documentation of this “priesthood”? There are deacons and deaconesses, among other offices, but none that were classified as a “priesthood”.

At the time of the restoration, all worthy men of Christ's restored church are ordained to the priesthood, as promised in the Book of Revelation.

Worthy? Of what? And where in Revelation does it say that there will be a priesthood that excludes any believer?

Yes. In fact, he's an Ephraimite who ordained four black men to the priesthood.

Irrelevant to my question, I must say. If he didn’t have a legitimate priesthood, he couldn’t legitimately convey it on anyone.

[QUOTE] In the times of the Mosaic Law, an Ephraimite could not be ordained to the prepatory (Aaronic) priesthood, could not serve in the Temple. But after Christ's resurrection, lineal distinctions are done away with.

As are selective “priesthoods”. All believers have it.

Not that Ephraim would have been claiming his patrilineal blessing through his mother anyhow.

Nor could he claim it through his father because he was not of the priesthood lineage.

Joseph of Egypt's marriage to Aseneth would have no effect on passing on his patrilineal birthright. Your Nibley quote backs this up--it's the father who passes a patrilineal right, not the mother.

Patriarchal blessings and birthrights have nothing to do with a priesthood, so Nibley was either arguing against a strawman or missing the point entirely. Pharaoh was cursed, not ineligible by birth, in relation to the priesthood. Why? It is not said specifically.

Joseph Smith didn't claim the priesthood through Ephraim. He was ordained by John the Baptist to the Aaronic priesthood,

…which would mean that John the Baptist ordained a non-Levite to a no-longer-active priesthood that was designed to sacrifice animals in the temple to await the final sacrifice, Christ.

and ordained to the Melchizidek by Peter, James and John.

Which means they were Priest-Kings and mentioned in Hebrews next to Jesus and Melchizedek, right? Sorry, but the Melchizedek Priesthood is solely in Christ’s possession.

Christ did away with the lineal requirements in AD 30.

He did away with the Levitical Priesthood in 30AD too.

The fact that blacks were almost never ordained to the priesthood from 1852 to 1978 was a temporary situation. I could offer my theories about why this was done, but they would be my theories since no reason was given. I believe in the family of Elijah Abel, God provided himself with a witness that there is no such thing as a lineal curse.

I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus that God proved that there was no more lineal curse. Each man was responsible for himself, and thus, every believer is a priest, as Peter explained to his readers. Joseph Smith claimed 2 priesthoods. First, he claimed a Levitical Priesthood which ended at the cross and then a priesthood that belongs solely to Christ as the one alive forever more. Neither one was he eligible to obtain, and neither one was he eligible to pass on.

[Sparko]

bumpety