What you say is not Biblical, but I appreciate that you believe it. Joseph has, in effect, called me and every other Catholic, a liar. I do not believe I am a liar.
Actually Parker is pretty much correct, exept that the Mormon theology of a *restored *priesthood contradicts the terms of the Levitical Covenant grant, as explained in Jer 33. Apart from that, he is right.
The distinction in order between the Melchizedek and Levitical priesthood is quite biblical and real. I don’t know to what extent Parker will agree with all that I am about to say, but here is a basic outline of some key points in the biblical case for this:
The Melchizedek priesthood is the priesthood that a person possesses by virtue of being a firstborn son. Prior to the establishment of the Levitical covenant, there were already priests among the Israelites, but the rights and duties of the priesthood belonged not to the Levites exclusively, but to the firstborn sons of Israel. The priestly role of the firstborn is implied when God says that Israel is to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6) and also that “Israel is my son, my firstborn.” (Exod 4:22)
While all of Israel is called to be a kingdom of priests, there is, under the original Sinai Covenant, a special consecration of the firstborn sons within the nation. Hence God commands Moses: “Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel.” (Exod 13:2, cf. 22:29) However, when Israel turns to idolatry in the Golden calf incident, God strips the firtborn of their priesthood and hands it over to the Levites, who get the hoary the job of slaying many of the idolators. Only then does God say to the Levites: “Today you have consecrated yourselves to the Lord.” (Exod 32:29) And afterwards we read in Numbers: “Take the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; and the Levites shall be mine: I am the Lord.” (3:45)
The outcome of the new establishment of the Levites as priests is the long and extensive legislation that rolls out until the end of Deuteronomy, as God continually adds statutes to correct Israel’s continual backsliding. This is why, even from the Old Testament itself, we can see that the Old Law was provisional, it is a remedy for the disestablishment for the firstborn sons. In the New Covenant, however, preisthood is reclaimed for the firstborn by Christ, and that is one of the principal teachigns of the Letter to the Hebrews. Notice how central the unity of sonship and preisthood is for St. Paul, and how it serves as a basis for understanding Christ’s priesthood in linght of Melchizedek:
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. (Heb 5:5-6)
[Note: Most of the Fahters and ancient Rabbis agree that Melchizedek is a title of Shem, the firstobrn son of Noah, who was still alive in Abraham’s time, according to the geneologies.]
