I have made a mishmash of notes of things that piqued my interest.  These notes are sitting on my phone and 2 computers, mocking me right now.  About half of them I remember, and I put enough information on the note to recall most of the circumstance and substance of what I wanted to keep.  The rest, however, are probably lost forever.  Dangit.

Anyway, one of them had to do with a Sunday School lesson we had a few weeks ago, where in the New Testament (somewhere close to the end), we read some verses that had to do with Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses.  Karen asked the question of how these supposed titles were similar, or rather, how a person could fill both.  Brother Miner thought that was a good question and we spent a few minutes on it.

Kings and Queens are rulers, generally over secular duties having to do with the daily and strategic running of a kingdom or country.  Priests and Priestesses would serve over religious duties, such as running the church or congregation, attending to the spiritual needs of the people.

The separation of these duties is obvious, yet many in history have done both.  For example, traditionally, the King or Queen of England is the head of the Anglican church, the Defender of the Faith.  This dates back to the time when England split from the Catholic church and formed the Church of England, or Anglican faith.  The King was responsible for the division, and took it upon himself to be the head of the new church.  Thus, the monarch of England served in both secular and religious leadership.

In the Book of Mormon, there was a time when the people decided to abandon the monarchy and went instead to a panel of judges to rule, among which was a chief judge.  This chief judge was also the High Priest of the church.  Alma served in this capacity for some time.  Thus, he was the ruler of the country, and was also the leader of the church.  He eventually felt that the two positions did not lend themselves to each other, and turned the secular role to another, devoting his time fully to God. 

These kinds of examples give us some understanding as to the differences between being a King and a Priest.

Consider Jesus, who is both a God, head of his kingdom, and High Priest, head of his church.  He fills both roles.  So does His Father.  In a fully righteous place, one can do both.  The problem with the world is that there is no place that is righteous enough to do it.  It has been close, several times, but never quite there, with the possible exception being the city of Enoch.

In the temple, we are anointed to become Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses, telling us that the marriage of these roles is not only possible, but expected.  I am sure that God does not require us to be such here on Earth.  Rather, we need to develop and learn the attributes that would make us successful in those combined duties, becoming masters of ourselves, able to handle the situations that such a leader would encounter.  What we do and learn here will be added upon in the next life.  Failure to learn here will very likely hamper our later abilities.  Therefore, we should do our best here, and be worthy and ready to fulfill our anointments and eternal potential.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm and is filed under Church Meetings, Older Posts, Scriptures. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)