Unknown Date Of Melchizedek Priesthood Restoration

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

This presents some ambiguities...with what authority was the church established and run for that year? Perhaps the historical evidence is lacking.

Dr. Keller thinks it was being run by a Celestial Quorum of the 12

Now you actually don't get an official Quorum of Twelve Apostles and Seventy until 1835. Now how do I put together the fact that I said earlier that without the Quorum of Twelve there is no authority on the earth? For those first few years I believe that the Quorum of Twelve was that Quorum headed by Peter, James and John in the heavens. But that the authority to administer the saving ordinances of the gospel and so on was officially passed to those formal bodies of Twelve and Seventy in 1835; and since then there can be no authority on the earth to administer the saving ordinances without the Quorum of Twelve.

I'm not sure I agree... but, figured I'd through it out there.

From: The Apostasy

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Of course, this is from a believer. If I wasn't a believer, I fail to see how important it would be.

Great con's always have great details...if it were a con he would have even given the time of day.

Pa Pa

[consiglieri]

Dr. Keller thinks it was being run by a Celestial Quorum of the 12

I'm not sure I agree... but, figured I'd through it out there.

From: The Apostasy

Hi, Dr. Steuss!

I hope that you (and Dr. Keller--I know you doctors like to stick together) won't mind if I say that idea sounds a bit like something Luna Lovegood might say.

Why would there have to be a celestial quorum of the twelve during the five-year gap? It seems to assume that everything has to be there all at once or we have to start making up new and inventive ways of making our presuppositions "fit."

It also raises the question of whether there was authority on the earth 2,000 years ago before Jesus chose the twelve apostles. Did there have to be a similar celestial quorum during the interim? And who would have been administering that particular quorum in heaven, what with Peter, James and John firmly planted on terra firma?

I think we all just need to relax and cut God some slack while he is bringing to pass his great and glorious designs.

At least I am glad to see that you did not necessarily agree with Dr. Keller.

(You aren't really Dr. Keller, are you?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sethbag]

Both Richard Lyman Bushman and D. Michael Quinn agree that all historical evidence points to the Melchizedek Priesthood being restored in 1831 and not in 1830. That is one year after the church was estblished.

This presents some ambiguities...with what authority was the church established and run for that year? Perhaps the historical evidence is lacking.

Irondukesteve, one argument I haven't seen the TBMs put forward yet, which I think could be made to work, is to consider that the office of "bishop" is an office in the aaronic priesthood. Thus, one does not necessarily require the Melchizedek priesthood for at least the basic running of a small church unit, and as the church was still small at this time, things like blessing the sacrament and baptizing and such were all that were necessary for that year or so until the MP was restored. Both of those require only the Aaronic priesthood. This argument doesn't account for why JS was "first elder" and OC were "second elder", nor take into account confirmation into the church and the granting of the gift of the Holy Ghost, both requiring the MP. But hey, the argument "JS was still working out how this was done" could come in really handy for these things. And really, given a problem with the church foundational claim, and an apologist determined enough to find a solution, one can surely be found. Maybe this is a good start.

[Irondukesteve]

Irondukesteve, one argument I haven't seen the TBMs put forward yet, which I think could be made to work, is to consider that the office of "bishop" is an office in the aaronic priesthood. Thus, one does not necessarily require the Melchizedek priesthood for at least the basic running of a small church unit, and as the church was still small at this time, things like blessing the sacrament and baptizing and such were all that were necessary for that year or so until the MP was restored. Both of those require only the Aaronic priesthood. This argument doesn't account for why JS was "first elder" and OC were "second elder", nor take into account confirmation into the church and the granting of the gift of the Holy Ghost, both requiring the MP. But hey, the argument "JS was still working out how this was done" could come in really handy for these things. And really, given a problem with the church foundational claim, and an apologist determined enough to find a solution, one can surely be found. Maybe this is a good start.

I think that is the best explanation I have heard so far and is something Bushman also emphasises when considering the 1835 reforms of the church and institution of the "high priesthood".(And Whitmer's claim that he never heard of Melchezidek Priesthood until 1835)

It is generally one of those things I am agnostic over...but I think it is important to find an adequate explanation. I like your explanation...it helps a "buffet mormon" like myself to live as a Mormon knowing that the Church wasnt always a rigidly structured organization but is a bit more flexible.

[DonBradley]

Interesting, Consiglieri.

I don't think I'd considered how the failure to provide a date actually reinforces the sincerity of the account. If Joseph Smith were going to concoct the Peter, James, and John visit, he could have just manufactured a date as well--and would have been wise to do so.

On the other hand, if the event occurred just as later described, he and Cowdery would almost certainly have accorded it enormous significance--and would therefore likely have remembered the date.

The fact that Smith and Cowdery both mentioned the event while failing to give a date or any other significant detail suggests that an experience occurred, but that its full significance was understood only much later. The reinterpretation of a comparatively minor event as a major event would account for the pair's failure to provide a date--they couldn't recall it, but didn't want to just manufacture a false date for a real event--and it would also account for their refusal to provide substantive detail--to do so would have required them to either confuse their audience or to retroject later understandings onto an earlier event.

Don

[DonBradley]

I always thought it was a Mount of Transfiguration scenario and Joseph and Oliver didn't want to share much of what happened.

Interesting comparison, Nehor! Who was on the Mount of Transfiguration?

Don

[tubaloth]

First I guess how I see it. Most of the accounts I have heard stem back to similar ones that Larry C. Porter used in his article The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods

The main account that probably is tried to use as proof (to some extent) is the one from Addison Everett (which can be debated all day).

But even after they arrived at the Knightsâ?? residence in Colesville, opposition soon plagued them. Once again circumstances forced them to flee in haste from the mob and to return to Harmony. Brother Everettâ??s letter continues: â??And they wandered in a dense Forest all Night and often times in Mud and water up to thare Knees. And Brother Oliver got quite exausted in the After Part of the Night and Brother Joseph had to put his arm arround him and allmost carry him. And Just as the day Broke in the East Brother Oliver gave out Entirely and he[,] Br Joseph[,] leaned him against an Oake tree Just out side a field fenc[e] Br Oliver Crying out how long O Lord O how Long Br Joseph hav[e] we got to suffer these things[?] Just this moment Peter James & John came to us and Ordained to <us to> the Holy Apostelship and gave <unto> us the Keys of the Disp<e>nsation of the fullness of times. And we had some 16 or 17 miles to goe to reach our place of residence and Brother Oliver could travel as well as I could <after the Endowment>. [see D&C 84:33.] Now as to time and Place. I heard the Name of the Banks of the Susquehanah river spoken <of> But whare it was pla[c]ed I cannot till. No doubt the Oake tree and the field fence was ajacent to the river. As to time I cannot Be Very Explsit. But as the Mob spirit had not abated when they returned they had to remove to Father Whitmores <at Fayet[te] Seneca Co> to finish the Translation. I should <jud[g]e> it to <Be> the Latter part of August [1829].â?

The main point I guess I would make is if you canâ??t remember the EXACT day should you still PICK a day. As we can see they were running at night and I some what assume after the time came to record the event they probably couldnâ??t remember the EXACT day it happen on. They probably didnâ??t think it would be that big of deal, they knew WHAT happen. But they didnâ??t realize some years later we would be debating it on a message board.

[Ahman]

From "Rough Stone Rolling" by Bushman p.117-118

"At ten the next morning, Joseph was in court again, this time before three justices who formed a court of special sessions with the power to expel him from the county. Newel Knight was interrogated about his healing, and the prosecution rehearsed the old money-digging charges. Reed said witnesses were examined until 2 a.m., and the case argued for another two hours. The three justices again aquited Joseph. Most of the onlookers were won over, includeing the constable, who apologized for his bad treatment and warned Joseph that his enemies planned to tar and feather him. The constable took Joseph out a back door, and he made his way to Emma's sister's house, where his wife was waiting. The next day Joseph and Emma were safely home in Harmony.

Joseph and Cowdery tried to steal back to Colesville a few days later to complete the confirmations that the trials had interrupted, but their enemies were too alert. They had no sooner arrived at the Knights' than the mob began to gather. The knights had suffered along with Joseph. On the night of the South Bainbridge trial, their wagons had been turned over and sunk in the water. Mobbers piled rails against the doors and sank chains in the stream. On Joseph's and Cowdery's return to Colesville, there was no time for a meeting or even a meal before they had to flee.

Joseph said they travelled all night, "except a short time, during which we were forced to rest ourselve(s) under a large tree by the way side, sleeping and watching alternately." it may have been on this occasion that Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Cowdery and, as a later revelation said, "ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry: and of the same things which I revealed unto them." Erastus Snow later said that Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Cowdery "at a period when they were being pursued by their enemies and they had to travel all night, and in the dawn of the coming day when they were weary and worn who should appear to them but Peter, James and John, for the purpose of conferring upon them the Apostleship, the keys of which they themselves had held while upon the earth, which had been bestowed, upon them by the Savior." In a conversation between Hyrum and Joseph overheard by Addison Everett, Joseph spoke of a trial involving Mr. Reed. In trying to escape the mob,

"Joseph & Oliver went to the woods in a few rods, it being night, and they traveled until Oliver was exhausted & Joseph almost Caried him through mud and water. They travelled all night and just at the break of day Olive® gave out entirely and exclaimed O! Lord! How long Brother Joseph have we got to endure this thing; Brother Joseph said that at that very time Peter James and John came to them and Ordained them to the Apostleship."

[Ahman]

The above happened on or around July 2nd 1830. This date is gathered from reading the trial dates they had just gone thru.

[Lachoneus]

The above happened on or around July 2nd 1830. This date is gathered from reading the trial dates they had just gone thru.

In footnote 35 to chapter 5 (p.588), Bushman claims that Porter relied on Everettâ??s 1882 letter to date the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood to June 1829. He then discusses how this second letter is â??problematicâ? and why Everettâ??s 1881 letter is more reliable.

Unfortunately, Bushman is wrong. Porter did not rely on the 1882 letter to establish the date of the priesthood restoration. Porter relied on that letter to establish the location of the restoration, not the date. See: Where Was It Restored?.

To establish the date of the higher priesthood's restoration, Porter relies on certain documents written by Oliver Cowdery in 1829.

Perhaps the earliest document referring to the bestowal of the higher priesthood before the organization of the Church is a manuscript in Oliver Cowderyâ??s handwriting with the designation, â??Written in the year of our Lord & Saviour 1829â??A true copy of the articles of the Church of Christ.â? In the â??articles,â? the Lord specifies, â??I command all men every where to repent & I speak unto you even as unto Paul mine apostle for ye are called even with that same calling with which he was called.â? 17 We may note that the essentials of this quotation are contained in D&C 18:9, revealed in June 1829. As a preface to section 18, the Prophet recorded in his history, â??The following commandment will further illustrate the nature of our calling to this Priesthood, as well as that of others who were yet to be sought after.â? 18 In verse 9 of that revelation, the Lord stated: â??And now, Oliver Cowdery, I speak unto you, and also unto David Whitmer, by the way of commandment; for, behold, I command all men everywhere to repent, and I speak unto you, even as unto Paul mine apostle, for you are called even with that same calling with which he was called.â?

Thus, by this pointâ??sometime in June 1829â??not only had Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the divine apostolic call, but David Whitmer also had received a calling to serve as a third special witness of the Lord (see accompanying sidebar article titled â??David Whitmerâ??s Calling,â? p. 37).

It is also apparent that their apostolic calling came before mid-June. In a letter dated 14 June 1829, Oliver Cowdery wrote from Fayette, New York, to the Prophetâ??s brother Hyrum Smith, then residing in Manchester Township, Ontario County, New York. The letter contains wording very parallel to section 18 of the Doctrine and Covenants. A comparison strongly suggests that Oliver was quoting and referring to the revelation, 19 indicating that it had already been received by that date. (See accompanying sidebar article titled â??An Early Quoting of Section 18,â? p. 38). By focusing on the point that the apostleship spoken of in D&C 18:9 is the same held by Jesusâ?? ancient Twelve, we see that the Melchizedek Priesthood had been restored before 14 June 1829.

17. Oliver Cowdery, â??Written in the year of our Lord & Savior 1829â??A true copy of the articles of the Church of Christ,â? MS 1829, LDS Church Archives.

18. History of the Church, 1:61â??62; Papers of Joseph Smith, 1:300.

19. See letter of Oliver Cowdery to Hyrum Smith, 14 June 1829, Fayette, New York, LDS Church Archives.

See here.

As far as I can tell, Bushman fails to address these circumstances.