From my understanding, LDS teach that Aaron appeared to Joseph Smith and reestablished the Aaronic priesthood. >The two divisions of priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Aaronic and the Melchizedek. -source- The Aaronic priesthood was handed down by bloodline. >And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office. Exo 30:30 In addition, the book of Hebrews speaks of the necessity of the Aaronic priesthood as not needed any longer. Things changed. >If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. Heb 7:11-12 >In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Heb 8:13 So, given the Aaronic priesthood was handed down generationally by bloodline and has ended (vanished), how do LDS explain their Aaronic priesthood?

In the LDS faith, the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood are Deacon, Teacher, Priest, and Bishop. Current practice in the LDS church is to ordain most teenage boys in the church to the first three offices as they progress through their teenage years. Do LDS Aaronic Priesthood Teachers have actual teaching duties in a practical sense in the 21st century, or are they teachers in an abstract or theoretical sense (e.g. if all priesthood holders except for 15 year old Billy were killed or incapacitated, he would be allowed to take over classrooms, but until then, he is expected to be quiet and let the adult professionals do the actual teaching)? Do they design curricula, lecture, hold office hours, grade papers, administer exams, evaluate students, or otherwise engage in practices associated with professional educators nowadays? Do Aaronic Teachers have divine *authority* to teach a wide variety of courses, content, or curricula but in practice *don't* because there are usually more qualified, professional teachers available at whatever level is being discussed (e.g. college, high school, etc.), or are their actual teaching competencies sharply limited in both theory and practice (e.g. they are authorized only to teach Sunday School, and that only for Grade 5 and below, anything else requires a further ordination, and/or a non-priesthood teaching certification).

I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood. In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. > and you shall gird **Aaron and his sons** with sashes and bind caps on > them. And the **priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever**. Thus > you shall ordain Aaron and his sons. Exodus 29:9 ESV In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood? If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood? Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?

Luke 1:36 >And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. (New Revised Standard Version) According to [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible](https://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/luke/1.htm) : >For though Elisabeth was of the daughters of Aaron, or of the tribe of Levi by her father's side, yet might be of the tribe of Judah by her mother's side, and so akin to Mary. If that is true, then could the Jews of the first century, have called Mary "the daughter of Aaron", even if she was only akin to Elisabeth by the tribe of Judah by her mother's side?

A professor today made the claim that the following claim is spurious: > And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. Mark 15:38 (NRSV) His rationale is that no-one but the high priest would be allowed to see the veil in the holy of holies in the temple, so the author of Mark could not have knowledge of such an event occurring. Is this claim accurate? Who would have seen or had knowledge of the tearing of the veil that could have communicated that event, directly or indirectly, to Mark? How could this event have made it to Mark?

Recently a certain church (Apostolic Church) installed a High priest as the leader of their church But according to the book of Hebrews the Priesthood of Christ can never be superceded by another priest. > For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. - Hebrew 7:17 KJV In light of the above testimony could any church install a high priest after the advent of Christ. How do these churches install high priests?

The bible makes it clear that Christ Jesus' ministry is of the order of Melchizedek and not of Aaron. Christ was born from Judah and not from Levi. Christ is the High Priest of the order of Melchizedek. >So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. Heb 4:14 >That is why Christ did not honor himself by assuming he could become High Priest. No, he was chosen by God, who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your Father.[fn]” Heb 5:5 >And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God's house, Heb 10:21 The bible also tells the New Testament believers that we are a nation of priests. >He has made us a Kingdom of priests for God his Father. All glory and power to him forever and ever! Amen. Rev 1:6 >And you are living stones that God is building into his spiritual temple. What's more, you are his holy priests.[fn] Through the mediation of Jesus Christ, you offer spiritual sacrifices that please God. 1 Peter 2:5 So, this outline appears similar to the Levitical priesthood where there is a High Priest and then priests. We also know in the Old Testament that the High Priest changed. >The descendant who succeeds him as high priest will wear these clothes for seven days as he ministers in the Tabernacle and the Holy Place. Ex 29:30 >In future generations, the purification[fn] ceremony will be performed by the priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as high priest in place of his ancestor Aaron. He will put on the holy linen garments Lev 16:32 My question is whether any groups teach that under the Melchizedek priesthood there are new High Priests who serve alongside Christ or here on earth? In other words, can there be more than one High Priest in the order of Melchizedek? What is an overview, specifically LDS, Catholicism, Protestantism, on this question?

In the Aaronic Priesthood, priests come and go but Jesus is a priest forever. > **[Hebrews 7:23-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+7%3A23-25&version=MSG)** (MSG) > > **23-25** Earlier there were a lot of priests, for they died and had to be replaced. But Jesus’ priesthood is permanent. He’s there from now to eternity to save everyone who comes to God through him, always on the job to speak up for them. According to Evangelicals, when did Jesus become the High Priest?

What reasons does the Bible give for why the tribe of Levi was chosen to have the priesthood and temple duties? In Genesis 49:5-7 when Jacob was telling his children what will happen to them, he told Simeon and Levi that they were violent and that they would be scattered among the descendants of Jacob and they would be dispersed among Israel. Could this have been something like a prophecy and could this be the reason?

I don't have any hard number, but in most other churches, usually there are only a few priests per church (if they have priests). In the LDS Church on the other hand, usually almost half of the congregation is priests. So, why does the the LDS Church have so many more priests than other Churches per congregation?

How did the Gift of the Holy Ghost operate before Christ came? In particular, I'm wondering how it operated among the ancient Jewish people, who only had the Aaronic priesthood, and therefore would not be able to give the gift of the holy ghost.

In ancient times, the only people who were offered a chance to become the priest were Aaron and his sons. Would not this be unfair? There might have been people who were better suited for the position. It has been shown throughout the Bible that sons of people with the position of priest were not always good (Eli's sons, Samuel's sons, etc.). What was the reason for this strictness regarding the position of being the priest?

In May 1829, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery went into the woods to pray because of some questions they had about baptism. As recorded by Joseph Smith, they were visited by John the Baptist, who gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. The Aaronic Priesthood included the authority to baptize. John then directed them to baptize each other. First, Joseph baptized Oliver, then, Oliver baptized Joseph. This is an unusual arrangement because baptism generally precedes receiving the priesthood, and usually the baptizer has already been baptized. As I understand it, in order to perform a priesthood ordinance it is necessary to have a physical body (this is why baptisms for the dead are performed by the living by proxy). As a resurrected being, John the Baptist had a physical body – evidenced by the fact that he laid his hands on their heads when he gave them the Aaronic Priesthood. So, he should have been able to baptize them as well. My question is this: Why didn't John baptize Joseph and Oliver, or at least Joseph, and then give him/them the priesthood? It seems that this would better establish the order of baptism first, then receiving the priesthood. Is it something to do with the nature of resurrected beings? Or, is there something specific Joseph and Oliver needed to learn? Joseph Smith's account is recorded in Joseph Smith—History .

Background = Before John the Baptist laid hands on Joseph Smith to establish the [Aaronic Priesthood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaronic_priesthood_(Latter_Day_Saints)) , and Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon Joseph Smith to establish the [Melchizedek Priesthood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melchizedek_priesthood_(Latter_Day_Saints)) , there were several figures of note according to the book of Mormon well after the original 12 apostles' time. Not the least of which was [Mormon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_(Book_of_Mormon_prophet)) himself. Question = Because Mormon existed before the moment where the priesthoods were reestablished though Joesph Smith, I had this question come to mind: Was Mormon himself a priest in the sense that the Aaronic and Melchizedek priests are in the LDS today?

Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to Aaronic priesthood: > "No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this > priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron." (D&C 107:16) If a literal descendant of Aaron were to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–supposing they could trace their lineage–would they need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood, or would the church recognize their legal right to it?