inquiringmind Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Why was Joseph ordained to the High Priesthood by Lyman Wight (a man who he had just ordained himself) in 1831?http://books.google....epage&q&f=falseAnd what is meant by "High Priesthood" here?Was the term used in 1831 in the same way the LDS Church uses it today? Edited July 28, 2011 by inquiringmind
Gohan Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 Because it was important that Joseph be the first to exercise those keys, not that he be the first ordained. Such as the case where he baptized Oliver Cowdery and then was baptized off him. The same with their ordinations to the Aaronic Priesthood.
David T Posted July 28, 2011 Posted July 28, 2011 (edited) Why was Joseph ordained to the High Priesthood by Lyman Wight (a man who he had just ordained himself) in 1831?http://books.google....epage&q&f=falseAnd what is meant by "High Priesthood" here?Was the term used in 1831 in the same way the LDS Church uses it today?It was the office of a High Priest. The term in 1831 "Priesthood" didn't mean an overarching "order" or "power". It mean you were a Priest. The earliest revelations discussing the "High Priesthood" and the "Lesser Priesthood" meant the offices of High Priest, and Priest respectively. Other offices weren't offices 'within the Priesthood' as we view them today, but were rather appendages and helps and auxilliaries to them. Thus, an Elder wasn't an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, it was an appendage and help to a High Priest. Just as Teachers and Deacons were not "Priesthood Holders", but were rather appendages to the office of Priest, or the Aaronic Priesthood.Our current concept of "Conferring" the Priesthood and then "Ordaining" to an office (a distinction not made by Joseph) was largely an innovation of Joseph F. Smith. There's a fantastic article on that here at WVS' blog (it's part of a 12 part series on the development of Priesthood offices and D&C 107. I highly consider checking out the entire series.)Joseph would generally receive a divine commission to a role or office, ordain someone to that office, and then have that individual re-ordain him within the hierarchy of the Church. Edited July 28, 2011 by nackhadlow
erichard Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) ...Our current concept of "Conferring" the Priesthood and then "Ordaining" to an office (a distinction not made by Joseph) was largely an innovation of Joseph F. Smith. ....That fact that President Joseph F Smith, who was very close to Brigham Young and many other close disciples of Joseph, taught this concept could mean that it was not really his "innovation", but this concept was what was understood by those close to Joseph, and JFS was just expounding it publically.Right?Richard Edited July 29, 2011 by erichard
erichard Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 Why was Joseph ordained to the High Priesthood by Lyman Wight (a man who he had just ordained himself) in 1831?http://books.google....epage&q&f=falseAnd what is meant by "High Priesthood" here?Was the term used in 1831 in the same way the LDS Church uses it today?Hi,I read a few pages from your link. RRS is sure a neat book.In my understanding, men can hold the High Priesthood completely independently from any office in the church.Joseph and Oliver were fore-ordained to the high Priesthood (called the Melchizedek Priesthood) as spirits. By revelation, at Father Whitmer's home in 1829, his and Oliver's MP was activated. But even though they then held the MP, and organized the church using that authority, that does not mean that any church officer held it.The church was a creation of the MP, not the other way around. But eventually, as noted in RRS, officers in the church did receive the MP. And Joseph, likewise, had to be ordained to hold that Priesthood in the church just like anyone else. Does that make sense?Richard
David T Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) That fact that President Joseph F Smith, who was very close to Brigham Young and many other close disciples of Joseph, taught this concept could mean that it was not really his "innovation", but this concept was what was understood by those close to Joseph, and JFS was just expounding it publically.Right?RichardDid you read the links? I'd be interested on your thoughts on wvs' thorough series on the history of that development. It's not exactly correlated (especially not with your 2BC), but highly informative. Edited July 29, 2011 by nackhadlow
David T Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) edited. Edited July 29, 2011 by nackhadlow
erichard Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Did you read the links? I'd be interested on your thoughts on wvs' thorough series on the history of that development. It's not exactly correlated (especially not with your 2BC), but highly informative.Remind me what " wvs' " means.Richard
David T Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 Remind me what " wvs' " means.RichardIt's the initials of a historian and blogger of Mormon textual history. He's preparing a critical edition of Joseph Smith's funeral sermons among other text-criticism projects.I linked to the relevant blog entry (one of a series) in my earlier post in this thread.
Recommended Posts