What most folks in the church overlooked after Joseph died was a very crucial speech he gave on August 27, 1843. In this speech he mentioned that there are really three priesthoods to be had in the church: 1) Aaronic, 2) Melchizedek, and 3) The Fullness of the Priesthood, as Stapley mentioned above. The latter of the three is what constitutes being a “king and priest,” with God as the most-high king. The speech in question is best read from Ehat & Cook’s Words of Joseph Smith.
“the promise to become such
J, you’re the best, man. I love it when people notice that from the endowment. The initial anointing is contingent and conditional. I remember after I learned about the Fullness, I went through an endowment, and right after they dim the lights, they talk about it!!!. I hope no one on the correlation committee is reading this, cuz they’ll figure it out and remove that part.]]>
You are right in that I’ve screwed up the terminology. However the point remains that those three were made Kings in a way which hasn’t happened since. Is that completely separate from what Don is talking about? Is their ordination as King a fulfillment of the promise to become such? Or is it something else entirely?]]>
1. King and Priest
2. Prophet, Priest and King
3. Apostle (and as such a prophet, seer and revelator)
Additionally, hey was the “President” of the church. The reality is that there is no office of “Prophet” in the church. The reference to the President of the Church as “the Prophet” is not referential to a specific office…it is simply a convention that has evolved over time.]]>
So yes, it seems to be one as much as Prophet is.]]>
Note that in the temple we are anointed and ordained to become a King and Queen and are not anointed as such. (Not that you guys disagree – just thought I ought emphasize it)
The distinction to add to what I think J. Stapley is getting at is the distinction between the Patriarchal Priesthood and the Highest Order of the Patriarchal Priesthood. Then there is the government on earth tied in some still controversial way to the council of Fifty.
Then there is the sense of King as Jesus Christ, who is the only King here on earth.]]>
I think that the hardest thing for people to accept this theology (in the modern Church, i.e.) is that all “Exaltation” is not equitable.]]>