“It is true that Solomon built a Temple for the purpose of giving endowments, but from what we can learn of the history of that time they gave very few if any endowments…. I will not say but what Enoch had Temples and officiated therein, but we have no account of it.” JD 18:303.

He does say “from what we can learn of the history,” so I don’t see this as a definitive statement but an honest attempt to obtain the facts and make a judgment. His point at the time was to get the Saints to realize the amazing blessings available to them in the newly finished temple and to realize that most people in the world’s history had not been so blessed.

You asked: “Are you saying that the kings of Israel were initiated into the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood, while the priests of Israel were initiated into the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood?”
Sporgsmal says: youbetchya

You said: “just because certain ordinances [like baptism for the dead] are mentioned in D&C 124 does not mean that those OT prophets or people necessarily practiced them.”
Sporgsmal replies: Actually, baptism for the dead is only one single ordinance and was not instituted until the meridian dispensation. The other things mentioned in D&C 124 have direct relevance from a OT restoration standpoint — “statutes” or laws; “memorials” for sacrifices by the Sons of Levi (priests); conversations and oracles at the “most holy” place (kings); things associated with “glory, honor, and endowment” (Gk. – to clothe; cf. the Hebrew of Ex. 28:2); “keys” to be used for certain purposes (the king is clearly associated with those keys in Old Testament texts); etc.

Are you saying that the kings of Israel were initiated into the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood, while the priests of Israel were initiated into the ordinances of the Aaronic priesthood? That sounds right. When I said that “the ordinances just aren’t the same” I was referring to those practices that dominate a reading of the first books of Moses in the Bible compared with the temple practices of today. What we read there seems mostly geared towards the priests and their work. Little is said about the high priest, or what he did in the Tabernacle, or even in Solomon’s temple. It is entirely possible that the high priest, prophet, or king was participating in the higher ordinances behind the veiled curtains of the holy of holies, but we just don’t get a lot of that reading in the Bible. And perhaps that is because, as David said, the descriptions in the Bible are biased towards the Aaronic priests. The higher ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood may have been had in the Tabernacle and in Solomon’s temple; but if they were, they were kept only for very select individuals. Israel as a whole was not ready or worthy to receive them.

It’s interesting to note that in D&C 124 it also mentions baptisms for the dead, yet we know that this ordinance was not performed at the time of Moses or any other OT prophet because Christ had not yet thrown open the gates of spirit prison during his visit to that world during the three days of his entombment. On this point Dr. Skinner agrees: “This aspect [redemption of the dead] of the Father’s plan was not an afterthought, though it did not become operational until after Jesus’ mortal death on the cross and his redemptive sojourn in the world of spirits (see D&C 138)” (Temple Worship, 25). Elder McConkie concurs: “Baptisms for the dead were not performed in pre-meridian dispensations” (Mormon Doctrine, 72). So just because certain ordinances are mentioned in D&C 124 does not mean that those OT prophets or people necessarily practiced them. Skinner adds that “most of the ordinances administered on a daily basis in the authorized temples were Aaronic Priesthood in nature and were performed by Aaronic priests, as described in the Old Testament” (Temple Worship, 125).