This study is an examination of the office of high priest from its beginning with Adam as the first and down through the restoration of the Church in the last days. This study revealed that the office of high priest was the only priesthood office that was held from the time of Adam until the Melchizedek Priesthood was taken, generally, away from the congregation of Israel in Moses' day. The office did however remain but was exclusive only to a few. Another important aspect of the history of the office of high priest that will be shown is how the doctrine of foreordination applies to the office. The Book of Mormon prophet Alma discourse on the subject will be analyzed and used to show many of the requirements men who have desired the office of high priest have and continue to meet. This study also details the restoration of the office of high priest in the dispensation of the fullness of times. The Doctrine and Covenants is scriptural backdrop of this section. Historical examples from journals and other writings of those who were there will show how the office has been understood in the Church since the days of Joseph Smith. Further, a detailed account of how the Church came to understand the office of high priest in regard to the Melchizedek Priesthood office of Seventy is set forth. Lastly, a brief examination of vicarious bestowal of the office of high priest and the future of the office of high priest is also given.

The chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Near East is currently a topic of intense scholarly debate. The conventional/orthodox chronology for this period has been assembled over the past one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents, primarily those from the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. This major enterprise has resulted in what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data. I argue in my thesis that this conventional chronology is fundamentally wrong, and that Egyptian New Kingdom (Memphite) dates should be lowered by 200 years to match historical actuality. This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years. Moreover, I rely upon Kuhnian epistemology to structure this alternate chronology so as to make it methodologically superior to the conventional chronology in terms of historical accuracy, precision, consistency and testability.