Of course Indiana Jones is a fictional work, and much of the entertainment in it came from action scenes fighting Nazis rather than the Ark itself. Notwithstanding this, a main theme in the film involves a real power that appears to surround and protect the Ark. The idea that there exist powers beyond human comprehension was fundamental to Indiana Jones triumphing over Beloch and his Nazi allies. It is also worth noting that the power could not be captured or harnessed by the Nazis anymore than it was captured by the Philistines when they captured it from Israel. (1 Samuel 5)
Though fictional, the principal used for Biblical consistency is both accurate and pertinent to understanding the genuine power of God.
God's power cannot be captured. It cannot be bought. Emulating the rites of the priesthood do not produce power any more than Beloch's taped ceremony as he opened the Ark of the Covenant. Consider the following passage:
"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:1-6, emphasis added)
Of course, excluding murderous Nazis from accessing the power of God is not likely to raise any concerns. If there are any special interests that were opposed to Nazis being portrayed as evil, or implying that they were unworthy in God's eyes, I am not aware of them. It is not only culturally acceptable, it is an understatement to say that individuals who behave as the antagonists in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" should probably not be called to be priests of God.
There are, however, many individuals and groups that have a problem with how Mormons did or do now exclude individuals from obtaining priesthood office.
Before even beginning to tackle this concern, there are a couple important points of which to be aware about the general nature of the Priesthood in the LDS church.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not have a professional clergy.
- A deacon that faithfully passes the sacrament to the congregation and assists in the collection of funds to help those in need (fast offerings) earns $0.00 for his work. A Bishop that may spend hours meeting with individuals and families as well as teaching lessons, fulfilling public speaking responsibilities, making financial decisions about the expenditure of funds, and visiting the members of his ward also earns $0.00 for his work. Having a higher office typically only results in more work. "Advancement" in the "hierarchy" does not increase salary since there is never any pay.
- Priesthood is not necessarily synonymous with leadership.
- While it is true that Apostles and Bishops and Teachers may be said to preside over others in different situations, this involves a concept called Priesthood Keys. This concept was established by Jesus Christ himself. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) The concept of keys of the kingdom represents the authority and responsibility to do as Christ himself would do on behalf of a particular level of church organization. An Elders Quorum President is authorized to receive guidance and offer direction for the Quorum of Elders over which he presides. The President of the Church, as the Apostle Peter, has the keys of the entire Kingdom of God on earth.
Those that take issue with this policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that women are not as valued as men by the Church and/or God himself, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. It is sometimes difficult for me, as a male, to determine who falls into what category since the question that is asked by either group is "why can't women hold the priesthood?"
There are many people within and without the church that attempt to answer this question. I have heard those within the church say that because women are more spiritual, men need the priesthood to become spiritual, or some other well meaning but misguided piece of supposition. I have heard people without the church speculate about polygamy coming back or other equally ridiculous conspiracy theory.
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but there would be more sympathy in my voice. At least I would attempt to be less abrasive than I can sometimes seem.
Another criticized exclusion from Priesthood authority revolves around a practice that no longer even exists: the exclusion of males of African descent. People eagerly label Mormons as racists because of this practice, in spite of the fact that the abolitionist views of many members were among the reasons that the residents of Missouri in the early 1800's wanted Mormons exterminated. The policy was reversed in 1979. The extension of the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng).
Those that take issue with this former policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that the policy existed and/or that the policy which was followed by leaders in the church changed, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. The question asked by those in both categories is typically "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood?"
There are numerous individuals within the church that have speculated on the purposes for excluding blacks from priesthood office, but the church's official statement exposes these explanations for what they are: speculation.
"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but again, there would be more sympathy in my voice.
Looking further back in time, it becomes apparent that restricting access to the Priesthood is not a recent practice in the church of Jesus Christ.
Jesus himself had an experience with a woman from Canaan:
"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matthew 15:21-28)
Only after impressive poise, faith, and humility after Jesus had called her a dog did she obtain a special exception for the policy of the day.
King Saul decided to take action when Samuel, the authorized Priest of God did not come when he was expected. "And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." (1 Samuel 13:9-14)
Saul acted as a priest and even though he was the King of God's chosen people, he was not of the correct tribe, and did not have authority to offer a sacrifice. God subsequently rejected him as king. This policy of exclusion went beyond non-African males, or even people of the House of Israel.
Going back further, in the days of Moses a man named Korah and several of his friends determined that Moses took too much upon himself to preside. As a consequence of their rebellion, God caused the earth to open up and swallow Korah and his followers. Subsequently, God prepared a demonstration to show the people who had Priesthood authority in the house of Israel. The princes of each tribe wrote their names on rods that they placed before the tabernacle. The next morning, Aaron's rod miraculously budded, blossomed, and brought forth almonds. This rod was kept in the Ark of the Covenant itself as a testimony against those who thought they could claim God's power. (Numbers 16-17)
Even further back, in the days of Israel himself, he and his elder brother Esau were the children of the patriarch Isaac. Although Abraham had more than one son, Isaac was the son promised him by God. (Genesis 17:15-16) This meant the priesthood could not be held by two brothers. Esau cared nothing for his birthright, and was willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. (Genesis 25:29-34) Eventually, when Isaac realized that he had bestowed his patriarchal blessing on Jacob instead of Esau, he would not take back what was done. (Genesis 27:37) Ultimately, it became clear that God had directed Jacob to receive the priesthood power when he extended the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13-15)
Passing the priesthood between a Father and only one of his Sons appears to have been the original method for accessing the priesthood. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem seem to represent the ancient order of Priesthood patriarchs. (D&C 84:14-16) When two brothers of the same parents are not both eligible to receive the priesthood, it is difficult to imagine a system that is less exclusive.
With additional context, important patterns regarding the availability of God's power become visible. It was once extremely exclusive, and it has gradually moved toward a system of much greater inclusion over time. Additionally, these changes are not brought about because of the perceived needs or desires of people in any given time. Saul's acting as a priest was a sin, whereas in latter days, 16 year old boys can be authorized to bless the emblems of Christ's flesh and blood. Change came when God said it should come: not before, not after.
While there are contemporary pressures that can cause many to question why certain groups appear to be excluded, the context of history provides a vastly more important question: why is God calling so many more priests?
While he may be sensative to the changing needs of societies, God probably is not concerned with the modern standards of politcal correctness. If he were, then many of the standards of worthiness would have altered to be more inclusive of practices such as homosexuality. Also, he would not have started including all the sons of Aaron into priesthood offices, but would have continued with the system of passing authority from a father to one of his sons.
Knowing the exact reasons why certain groups have been excluded at various times is not likely to accomplish more than satisfy curiousity. If percieved inequality is the basis for judging whether God loves a particular individual or a type of individual, then knowing details for why some of his children seem to have so much more than others of his children may even do more harm than good. What some one else has or lacks has absoultely nothing to do with the fact that God loves you individually.
Understanding every reason for everything God does or has done is not likely to take place in a single lifetime. That having been stated, understanding some of the plans God will use to accomplish his goals can provide clarity and priority to revealed truth. God's plans for the last days are particularly important.
In the book of Daniel, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar that in the last days, "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)
Mormons are not unique in their assessment that humanity has entered the latter days. Jesus Christ promised that he would return. Prophets throughout the Bible have foretold that the messiah would reign, and that the earth would be changed such that even nature would exist in greater harmony than we currently understand. (Isaiah 11) The book of Revelation is filled with prophecies about the end of the latter days. John describes angels proclaiming "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 11:15)
With his goals and plans in mind, and with the context of an increasing number of priesthood holders throughout time, the importance of why a certain group seems excluded diminishes.
It does not matter why women are not called to be priesthood holders or why blacks have been generally called and accepted as priesthood holders for a relatively short period of time.
Speculating, distressing, or arguing about these details is like arguing about how Indiana Jones never actually went into the German submarine before it went to the secret Nazi base. And to keep with the theme, imagine the argument is taking place in a narrow tunnel, and a giant round stone is rolling down the tunnel toward the people arguing. Perhaps it would be smarter to stop worring about the details of a movie and get out of danger... (just a thought)
In the end, the boldest and most important truths of Mormonism regarding the priesthood are not about exclusion, they are about inclusion. Mormons claim that the priesthood found in their church is authority from Jesus Christ himself. Latter Day Saints claim that a resurrected John the Baptist who was resurrected restored the authority to baptise to the prophet Joseph Smith. We claim that the subsequent month, Peter, James, and John, the apostles that Jesus Christ personally chose, came and restored the high priesthood. All priesthood holders in the church trace a line of authority through this... and if these claims are true, then the power to baptise and to bless and to officiate is genuinely power given by Jesus Christ. And if it is the power of Jesus Christ, then he can pretty much distribute it to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants... and he will never be wrong.
The claim about priesthood that is vital is that it is the authority to act in the name of God himself. God is calling more priests because he wants more people to have access to his power, whether that means baptism by an authorized baptist, or receiving a blessing of healing. Calling more priests means God may be anticipating more people needing help, and he is mercifully making that help a little closer.
