> I give Stephen the point that I can't find a specific scripture
> showing one will eventually be ordained a high priest in heaven.
> However, i still hold to that point. However, I do have some
> quotes below.

Without scriptural backing, that's merely a speculative opinion with no 
foundation. Thus, if taught as gospel, it qualifies as "false doctrine", 
since it in fact is not the teaching of the Church.

> BTW, it isn't just a "modern office."

>From what I can tell, it is.

> Melchizedek was a high priest. Christ was ordained a high
> priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5-7),
> distinguishing it from the high priest found in the
> Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood.

I mentioned before that there were two definitions of the term "high 
priest". To be more accurate, there are at least three definitions of 
"high priest" that refer to a holder of the true Priesthood:

1. The lead, or head, or "high", priest of a group of ecumenical 
authorities. Thus, Alma was "high priest over the land", meaning he was 
the head of the priests; similarly, Aaron, though not in possession of 
the higher Priesthood, was still a "high priest", since he was the 

2. Any holder of the high Priesthood may properly be referred to as a 
"high priest", in the sense that he is a priest (i.e. a holder of the 
Priesthood) after the order of Melchizedek. Thus it is that Alma calls 
those who hold the higher Priesthood "high priests" in Alma 13:9.

3. Specifically, in modern days a "high priest" is an office in the 
Melchizedek Priesthood, one that has certain duties assigned to it, 
normally relating to administrative duties.

I believe you are confusing these three, and assuming that any usage of 
the term "high priest" applies to #3 above. This is not the case, 

> Alma also speaks of high priests (chap 13), who seem
> distinguished from the teachers and other callings in the
> priesthood they had at the time.

Yes, as I mentioned above, Alma is speaking of all those who hold the 
Melchizedek Priesthood.

> So, High Priest is an ancient office within the MP.

You assert this, but you haven't given any evidence of it.

> BTW, an apostle isn't a deacon,

Of course he is. He doesn't belong to a deacon's quorum, but he holds 
all the responsibilities of a deacon, plus more.

> but does have the roles of a deacon given him, because the
> Aaronic Priesthood is a subset of the MP (D&C 107).  A subset
> of a larger group does not mean the individual who is of the
> superset belongs directly within that group, but that he
> encompasses it.

Exactly. This is the sense in which an apostle is a high priest; his 
calling encompasses that of high priest.

> A branch president [...] has authority to temporarily preside
> over the branch.

Just as a bishop has authority to temporarily preside over a ward.

> However, one called as a bishop is always a bishop

That is because "bishop" is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood; you 
don't stop being a deacon because you're an elder. You also never "lose" 
keys given you, assuming you're worthy. Rather, they just become 
inactive. So when a man receives the bishop's keys for his Aaronic 
Priesthood duties, he never "loses" them, just as he never "loses" the 
keys for being the elder's quorum president or presiding high priest.

If a man who has previously served as elder's quorum president, then 
been released, is again called to serve, he does not need to have the 
keys given him. He already has them. The same applies to a former bishop 
who is called to serve again as bishop, or a former stake president 
called to serve again as stake president, etc. Mark, Larry, Till, 
correct me if I'm wrong, but this is my understanding.

Your quotes, while rather interesting, don't serve to establish your 
particular opinion on this matter. In fact, they seem to me to harmonize 
quite well with what I've been saying.

> The right of presidency in a ward rests with the bishop. If he
> should neglect to ask or appoint anyone to preside in his
> absence, the body of the Priesthood present at a meeting would
> necessarily be the authority which would have the right to call
> or appoint a temporary presiding officer, in the absence of the
> regularly constituted authority. No man, without the consent of
> the Priesthood present, would have the right to assume to
> preside, unless he was called to do so by the Priesthood present,

Nota bene: In the absence of a regularly-appointed authority, the body 
of the Priesthood *as a whole* has the authority to appoint a presiding 
officer. Not the high priest groups or quorum, not the senior high 
priest, but the body of the Priesthood as a whole. Normally, they would 
select the senior high priest:

> who generally choose the senior high priest.

Your next quote is interesting:

> Was it necessary for the Prophet Joseph Smith to set apart
> Brigham or Heber or Willard, or any of the rest of the
> Twelve Apostles? No, for the same reason, they had received
> the fulness of the Holy Priesthood, the full endowment and
> the keys, and the authority, and the fulness of the
> Apostleship; therefore it was not necessary." (Elder George
> Q Cannon, (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols.

Nowhere here are high priests mentioned, so I'm not sure what your point 
is. The meaning above is quite apparent; apostles hold the keys of 
presidency. We already knew that; I'm sure that's a point we both agree 

> Oh, here's one from Abraham 1:  "...and desiring to receive
> instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a
> rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to
> the fathers."

This accords with "high priest" meaning #2 above -- a holder of the high 
Priesthood. Same with your next quote:

> "Adam was a great High Priest. So were his sons [...] Jesus
> Christ was our great High Priest

Skipping some redundant (re: the meaning of "high priest") quotes:

> "When Moses received the order to make his brother a High Priest,

This is a proof of what I've been saying. Aaron did not hold the 
Melchizedek Priesthood. He was the "high priest" in sense #1 above, that 
is, the leader of the priests. But he held the Levitical Priesthood, 
which is why we call it the "Aaronic Priesthood". Aaron was a "high 
priest", but not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.

> Hopefully, these will help to show the importance of the future
> ordination of all of us brethren as high priests and kings unto
> God the Father.

Sure, but that's much different from what you said before, which was 
that a man would need to hold the *Priesthood office* of high priest. 
This is false, or at best speculative, and your quotes only serve to 
substantiate the differentiation I have pointed out. Nowhere in 
scripture are we taught that the office of "high priest" is any sort of 
prerequisite at all for exaltation, either now or in the eternities. The 
Melchizedek Priesthood -- yes. Any specific (temporal) office within 
that Priesthood -- no.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to