Tag: ordination

144,000, part 2

The 144,000 are “sealed” by the “four angels” in Rev. 7: 1-3. They are “sealed” by “angels to whom is given power over the nations of the earth” in D&C 77: 11.

In the account of Revelation, they are sealed before “the earth, …the sea, …the trees” are “hurt” in the last days. (Rev. 7: 3.) This timing necessarily requires the “sealing” to precede great distresses which to us are still future. 

-What does it mean to have an “angel to whom is given power” come and “seal the servants of our God in their foreheads?” (D&C 77: 11; Rev. 7: 3.)
-Are men, or institutions, in control of this process?
-How would you expect this to happen?
-Does the “sealing” imply some kind of ordination?
-Is this connected in any way to the “oath and covenant of the priesthood?”

On that last question, D&C 84: 33-42, is often read, explained, and taught. But a context is imposed on the words that presumes a certain meaning. What if that context is incomplete, or merely a tradition, and not what the words were meant to convey? Here are the verses with another possible context inserted into them as they proceed:

For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling [notice “calling” is singular], are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies [here? now? in the resurrection?]. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron [who are “sons of Levi” and associated with the Aaronic or first priesthood] and the seed of Abraham [who is the father of the righteous, and one of the “fathers in heaven” to whom we must connect or be “utterly wasted” at the Lord’s return; and is associated with the second priesthood], and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God [this body of chosen individuals are a “church” and that church is confined to the “elect”]. And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord [in other words, the Lord makes Himself known to them, for that is how He is “received”]; For he that receiveth my servants [who are His “servants?] receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father [is this what Mosiah 5: 15 is referring to when it says Christ will ‘bring you to heaven, that you may have eternal life?’]; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him [in other words, the promise of exaltation and eternal life. Therefore, obtaining these two ordinations is directly connected with the “servants” and then the ministry of the Son, and the introduction to the Father]. And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father [in other words, they have knowledge from the Father that they are His, will inherit from Him all He has, and learned this as a result of the Son’s ministry with them], which he cannot break, neither can it be moved. But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come [because they have knowledge obtained from the Son, and a covenant obtained from the Father, and if they turn away they must rebel against the Godhead, whom they have come to know. They become ‘sons of Perdition’ because this is willful and known rebellion]. And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood [because if you do not receive this, you do not receive the fullness of the Gospel, and you do not have knowledge that will save you] which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens [because the higher priesthood is only given by the “voice of God” as described in JST Gen. 14: 29: “And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice” -see also JST Gen. 14: 26-29. This is why the “ordination” is confirmed by God’s voice here]; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you [which is how the “sealing” of the 144,000 will be connected to the “angels” who have “authority” in the verses which describe these events].

I have inserted a possible new context into the words for you to consider. I would remind you, however, that scripture is not something for “private interpretation,” but can only be unlocked through the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1: 20; see also JS-H 1: 74.) The meaning belongs to and is controlled by God.

Alma 13:8

Alma 13:8

 
“Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—”
 
The manner of such person’s ordination is described but-
 
What does it mean to be “called with a holy calling?” Is there something about the nature of this “calling” that is different from an interview and being “found worthy of advancement in the priesthood” as we commonly see?  What is a “holy calling” anyway?  Why does this kind of priestly calling get described exclusively as “holy” by its nature?  Is there some contact with God required (who is the source of all holiness) as part of this “holy calling?”
 
Then we have the description of their ordination. What does it mean to be “ordained with a holy ordinance?”  Does our practice of laying on hands, conferring the Aaronic Priesthood and ordaining to the office of Priest answer to this description?  What is the “holy ordinance” that is done to confer this priesthood? 
 
Can we automatically rule out the entirety of Aaronic and most of the Melchizedek priesthood offices when we see the words: “taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order?”  Is there some office we are aware of which is appropriately described as “taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order?” Think about that for a moment.
 
If this is a “holy calling” and it results in the person receiving it “taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order” isn’t this something perhaps quite different from what we do to disseminate the priesthood?  And if all the Aaronic Priesthood and most of the Melchizedek Priesthood offices are not what we would appropriately call “the high priesthood of the holy order” then are we talking about either of these two commonly held priesthoods anyway?
 
Then we have the interesting addition that the “calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end” for those involved. That is, without reference to mortality. It was held before coming here, it will endure after leaving here. It is “endless” in the sense it comes “from eternity to eternity” as set out in the preceding verse.
 
This is potentially quite different from the manner in which we practice priestly ordinations in the church today. I suppose that some will want to confine all this description to our practices.  They are free to see it in that way if they choose.  I’m just asking if it is more likely that the words have a different meaning than we have associated with them before.  If that is possible, then perhaps we ought to be asking the Lord to inform us more about the matter, rather than presuming we already possess what is being described here.
It may just be that our hopes for some great, eternal reward hinge upon getting to the bottom of this matter. It may just be that God’s control over and involvement with the “holy calling” and “holy ordinance” of having the “high priesthood after the Son of God” is immediate and direct.  It may be that this “holy ordinance” will only come from that God who employs no servant at the gate, but is Himself the gatekeeper.  (2 Ne. 9: 41.)  Wouldn’t that be wonderful.  Think about it – no flawed process.  No fooled bishop or stake president letting someone obtain an office for which they are completely unsuited.  It sort of makes sense.

Alma 13: 5-6

“Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared— 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—”


So there wasn’t some great advantage for these people who hold actual priestly authority. We learn that “in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren.”  Where was that “first place?”  Is it also “from the foundation of the world” referred to earlier?
What does it mean that they were “on the same standing with their brethren” while in that first place?
What was it about these who receive authority that qualified them to receive the “holy calling” from the foundation of the world?  What does it mean that they “would not harden their hearts” in the first place? If they didn’t do it then, will they do it now? 
Is foreknowledge about these individual’s qualifications based on prior performance? Can you determine that since they did not harden their hearts in the first place, they will not begin to harden their hearts now?

What about the “atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared” made them qualified? Did they accept Him there? Did they soften their hearts there toward Him? Are they capable of having redeeming faith in Him here because they first acquired it there? 

Is all this necessary to have preceded ordination here? If it was not acquired there, can an ordination here have any effect?
What, then, do those who qualify do? What does it mean “to teach his commandments unto the children of men?”
Is there something different between teaching commandments on the one hand, and “that they [who are taught] also might enter into his rest” on the other hand?  Are the two linked together?  Is it necessary to both “teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest” to show such priestly authority?  That is, can anyone, regardless of their true ordination to authority teach commandments? But does it take something more, some higher ordination in order to bring those taught “to enter into His rest?” If so, what is the difference? How can you recognize such teachings if they are ever put on display?

Did Joseph Smith exhibit such powerful teachings?

Did Enoch?
Did Melchizedek?  Abraham?  Elijah?  Elisha?  Nephi?  The Brother of Jared?  Enos?  Others?
Do we see that today? If so, where? Does anyone have the audacity to presume they can bring another soul back to the Lord’s rest?  Maybe Joseph Smith’s comment on this point is appropriate:  ““The things of God are of deep import and time and experience and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind O man if thou wilt lead a soul into salvation must search into and contemplate the darkest abyss and the broad expanse of eternity, thou must commune with God.” (DHC Vol. 3, p. 295.)  I’d like to meet such a man. They seem to be rather infrequent residents of this fallen world….
I’m only asking those questions which arise in my own mind as I read these words.  You’ll have to figure out your own answers.

Alma 13:4


“And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.” 

The result of what went on before is the reason for the ordination or calling.  That is, “thus they have been called.”  Meaning that all of what went into the earlier experiences i.e., being left to choose between good and evil, and having chosen good, having “faith” and good works, is the reason for their ordination. These souls are not novices. They are not getting authority here for the first time. They come with power from beyond this earth, bringing it with them to this earth. They qualified before and elsewhere.  

All of this is “on account of their faith.” All things are obtained through faith. That is explained in the Sixth Lecture, quoted here.  Faith is a principle of power. It is capable of making things happen. There must be a connection between faith and power; between faith and priesthood. 

Others reject the Spirit of God and, therefore, do not have this power.  These others may claim to have authority, but they do not really receive power from the Spirit of God.  They are animated by a different source.  

What, then, causes someone who has a little authority “as they suppose” (they don’t really have it, you see), to attempt to use that pretense to control and dominate others?  The answer is contained in revelations already in print. It is their pride, their insecurities, the need to control, to be praised and celebrated, the need to gratify their vain ambition. These are character flaws. They cover up these flaws by claiming to have priestly authority from God.  (D&C 121: 34-44.)

They are the world’s Pharaohs, not the world’s Abraham’s. Their hearts are hard, their minds blind.  

They do not hear the Spirit of God, and therefore none of the powers of heaven are with them.

This was/is their choice. They could have had the same privilege.  But, alas, they prefer instead their own aggrandizement. They prefer monuments built with their names engraven on them. There is no message of truth and hope coming from them. Their words (the only things which really endure), will fall to the ground unfulfilled.  They will not be remembered.  They will return without a saved soul.

What stunning doctrines we have stumbled upon here!  I’m getting worried about things as I look about. This Book of Mormon is alarming…

“Power” or “Authority”

In the church we have a regular system for ordination to give someone priesthood authority.  It requires the candidate to be interviewed, found worthy, recommended by the presiding authorities (Bishop or Stake President) to a congregation who sustains the ordination before it is performed.  The ordination takes place by the laying on of hands, is recorded, and a certificate is issued to the one ordained.
 
In contrast, the Lord’s ordination among the Nephites required only His word to be spoken, and power was conferred:
 
“And the Lord commanded him that he should arise. And he arose and stood before him. And the Lord said unto him: I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven. And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.” (3 Ne. 11: 20-22)

 

It is interesting that the word used in His conferral of priestly right was “power” and not “authority.”  Consider the difference.  Consider what it means for the Lord to speak unto a man and tell him that he has “power” from the Lord.
 
Is there a difference between having the “authority” to baptize, as we spread it about in the church today, and having the “power” to baptize as conferred by Christ?  If there is, then what is that difference?
 
Good questions to ponder.  Particularly as you consider President Packer’s timely reminder of the general lack of power in the priesthood of today’s church in his recent General Conference address, “Power in the Priesthood.”