Why Did The Original Version Of The Revelation In D&C 27 Have No Reference To Priesthood?

[cdowis]

What you mean is: "(I don't) feel troubled about these issues... it doesn't matter one whit (to me)"

I'm glad it doesn't trouble you. But does that mean you oppose the principle of historically based apologetics? Isn't this board founded on a group of people who have pioneered this?

The discussions on the board are based on a hobby, not religion. So historical apologetics, as you call it, is like collecting stamps, or playing chess. I do not use this to strenthen testimony, to proselyte, convert anyone. Over the past four decades of involvement in apologetics, I have learned to separate the two activities -- religion and hobby. I was influential, for example, in having the Smithsonian Institute modify their "Statement on the Book of Mormon", presenting early apologetics on DNA and the BOM, , etc. which were the practical results of this hobby.

Regarding someone who is having difficulty with a question in church history, I feel that this does cross over into religion. But my responsibility goes to sorting out the distortions from the facts. The best response on the "contradictions" in the First Vision accounts, is to actually read the accounts rather than the "abbreviated" version offered by the critic. "John, here are the accounts, and I personally have found only one relatively minor contradiction. For me, it was no big deal, but decide for yoursellf."

[Tacenda]

Wow Mf & Cdowis, you've been there, done that. I'll bet you just want to slap people like me. And I'm being serious when I say that.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

Wow Mf & Cdowis, you've been there, done that. I'll bet you just want to slap people like me. And I'm being serious when I say that.

Not sure what you mean- I certainly don't want to do that at all!

[mfbukowski]

The discussions on the board are based on a hobby, not religion.

I know what you mean. I go back to the AOL days too, with just a little pause of 10 years or so at least! Does anyone know what happened to Sally 0115 - I think that was her moniker- her name was Ruth, I won't say her last name but it starts with a P.

[Tacenda]

Not sure what you mean- I certainly don't want to do that at all!

Probably not. But I like what you said about faith. All along I've had a gut feeling that the church is true but then along comes logic as you say or JS's wifery and I'm back to square 1. I see you in a whole different light than before when reading your posts. Thanks for the insight.

[mfbukowski]

Probably not. But I like what you said about faith. All along I've had a gut feeling that the church is true but then along comes logic as you say or JS's wifery and I'm back to square 1. I see you in a whole different light than before when reading your posts. Thanks for the insight.

Follow that feeling. Logic cannot prove it or disprove it. That is the whole point to my posts but I guess I am not getting it across too well.

What you know for yourself in your heart is all that counts in these areas- we are not talking about things which are scientifically verifiable, but what gives your life meaning and purpose. And only you can know what does that. Logic has nothing to do with it!

These "claims" are not the kind of thing which can be verified by anything but the spirit! How could you prove that a man came back to life 2000 years ago? Impossible! Yet I am certain that he did and what is important is the way that belief enriches my life and gives it meaning. That is all that counts- but it cannot be proven or disproven anyway so that is about all we have to go on!

If a belief is "sweet" to you (Alma 32) go with it. That is the only possible criteria there is for such things anyway.

[Tacenda]

Follow that feeling. Logic cannot prove it or disprove it. That is the whole point to my posts but I guess I am not getting it across too well.

What you know for yourself in your heart is all that counts in these areas- we are not talking about things which are scientifically verifiable, but what gives your life meaning and purpose. And only you can know what does that. Logic has nothing to do with it!

These "claims" are not the kind of thing which can be verified by anything but the spirit! How could you prove that a man came back to life 2000 years ago? Impossible! Yet I am certain that he did and what is important is the way that belief enriches my life and gives it meaning. That is all that counts- but it cannot be proven or disproven anyway so that is about all we have to go on!

If a belief is "sweet" to you (Alma 32) go with it. That is the only possible criteria there is for such things anyway.

You have made your point very well in the past. I just didn't see it till now. Thanks again.

[canard78]

The discussions on the board are based on a hobby, not religion. So historical apologetics, as you call it, is like collecting stamps, or playing chess. I do not use this to strenthen testimony, to proselyte, convert anyone. Over the past four decades of involvement in apologetics, I have learned to separate the two activities -- religion and hobby. I was influential, for example, in having the Smithsonian Institute modify their "Statement on the Book of Mormon", presenting early apologetics on DNA and the BOM, , etc. which were the practical results of this hobby.

Regarding someone who is having difficulty with a question in church history, I feel that this does cross over into religion. But my responsibility goes to sorting out the distortions from the facts. The best response on the "contradictions" in the First Vision accounts, is to actually read the accounts rather than the "abbreviated" version offered by the critic. "John, here are the accounts, and I personally have found only one relatively minor contradiction. For me, it was no big deal, but decide for yoursellf."

I'm very grateful for people like you who have this hobby. As the avalanche of information spreads through the internet, the lay member who comes across it will continue to take great comfort from the work that you and many others do.

I often speak to people who say "I heard XYZ, but went to FAIR and discovered it's really ABC" - so thank you.

By the way, I'm aware of the DNA discussion but what was the change you influenced with the Smithsonian Institute's statement?

[canard78]

Follow that feeling. Logic cannot prove it or disprove it. That is the whole point to my posts but I guess I am not getting it across too well.

What you know for yourself in your heart is all that counts in these areas- we are not talking about things which are scientifically verifiable, but what gives your life meaning and purpose. And only you can know what does that. Logic has nothing to do with it!

These "claims" are not the kind of thing which can be verified by anything but the spirit! How could you prove that a man came back to life 2000 years ago? Impossible! Yet I am certain that he did and what is important is the way that belief enriches my life and gives it meaning. That is all that counts- but it cannot be proven or disproven anyway so that is about all we have to go on!

If a belief is "sweet" to you (Alma 32) go with it. That is the only possible criteria there is for such things anyway.

The challenge for many members is that a study of the history or a study of science can sometimes undermine their confidence that the feelings they have are really of a divine origin.

I know for certain that I have had incredibly intense, powerful feelings in Mormon settings (reading, in the temple, praying). I'll never deny I had those feelings or experiences. But sometimes when I study history or science it makes what I believe seem like a contradiction to what is being established through academic study. As a result it makes me question whether the spiritual experiences I have had could really be from God.

I choose to continue believing the experiences are of divine origins.

[canard78]

But to cut to the heart of the matter, in spite of the lack of references to the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to 1835, I do not think Joseph and Oliver invented the story. I believe their testimony. As Oliver Cowdery wrote Phineas Young in March 1846 (when Cowdery was still estranged from the Church):

I have cherished a hope, and that one of my fondest, that I might leave such a character as those who might believe in my testimony, after I shall be called hence, might do so, not only for the sake of the truth, but might not blush for the private character of the man who bore that testimony. I have been sensitive on this subject, I admit; but I ought to be so—you would be, under the circumstances, had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater, and look down through time, and witness the effects these two must produce. (Quoted in

Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844

, ed. John W. Welch [Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005], 244).

It occurred to me that the oath and covenant of the priesthood was given in 1832. It talks about both higher and lower priesthoods and names Aaron and Melchizedek in association with each.

The original handwritten copy is here: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/revelation-book-1#138

It also mentions John in reference to the 'lesser priesthood.':

the lesser priesthood continued which priesthood holdeth the keys of the ministring of Angels and the preparatory gospel which gospel is the gospel of repentance and baptisam and the remission of sins and the law of carnal commandments which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel untill John whom God raised up being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb for he was baptized while he was yet in the womb and was ordained by the Angel of God at the time he was eight days old

Also:

...the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord upon Mount Zion in the Lords house whose sons are ye and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church for whoso is faithful unto the obtaining of these two priesthoods of which I have spoken and the magnifying their calling...

Given this was in writing before the 1833 publication, it's viable that in 1832 and 1833 the JSH 1:74 instruction to keep the angelic visitations and restorations secret was still in place for both. What changed after 1833 to make open what was secret? The Kirtland temple building project started in 1833. Perhaps the start of the new temple dispensation or the confidence of being established in Kirtland meant that being more open about angelic visitors was acceptable.

[Hamba Tuhan]

As a result it makes me question whether the spiritual experiences I have had could really be from God.

For what it may be worth, it's been my personal experience that 'spiritual experiences' are the very beginning of faith. Maybe they're rom God; maybe -- despite the fact that they feel like something much more -- they're just wild dreams. The only way I've been able to make any kind of determination is to act on them. Speaking metaphorically, if there really are gold plates buried in a stone box in a nearby hill, the likelihood that the angel in my bedroom last night was just a figment of my imagination drops quite low.

[canard78]

For what it may be worth, it's been my personal experience that 'spiritual experiences' are the very beginning of faith. Maybe they're from God; maybe -- despite the fact that they feel like something much more -- they're just wild dreams. The only way I've been able to make any kind of determination is to act on them. Speaking metaphorically, if there really are gold plates buried in a stone box in a nearby hill, the likelihood that the angel in my bedroom last night was just a figment of my imagination drops quite low.

Indeed, I agree. The Alma 32 application to personal impact of scripture study, temple attendance, service, forgiveness etc is where my testimony is now primarily based.

We should judge the root by the fruit. The church origin or roots are lost in the history of time. We can imagine and speculate about what they look like. But the 200 year gap means there's no spade that can give us certainty. As I mentioned on another thread, people (I) run into problems when they (I) see the apparent gnarly, twisted and sometimes ugly roots of the tree and presume the fruit must be corrupt. Jesus taught that this would be the wrong way round of judging the LDS 'tree', it's by the fruit, not the roots, that we can know.

Perhaps I need to stop worrying about roots and more about fruit.

[Hamba Tuhan]

We should judge the root by the fruit. The church origin or roots are lost in the history of time. We can imagine and speculate about what they look like. But the 200 year gap means there's no spade that can give us certainty.

As already alluded to by MFB above, this is not merely a function of the 200-year gap. Contemporaries of Joseph Smith who were present during the laying of the roots reached radically different conclusions about the Prophet and his message, just as nearly 2000 years before that those who associated with Christ, listened to His teachings, and witnessed his miracles arrived at very different assessments of Him and His work. Merely being present doesn't seem to generate the certainty you seem to be wishing for.

[mfbukowski]

The challenge for many members is that a study of the history or a study of science can sometimes undermine their confidence that the feelings they have are really of a divine origin.

I know for certain that I have had incredibly intense, powerful feelings in Mormon settings (reading, in the temple, praying). I'll never deny I had those feelings or experiences. But sometimes when I study history or science it makes what I believe seem like a contradiction to what is being established through academic study. As a result it makes me question whether the spiritual experiences I have had could really be from God.

I choose to continue believing the experiences are of divine origins.

Yes I completely understand that, and to get out of that you really need to seek out what "reality" actually IS.

When you realize that science is made up of observations we all can verify- and that that is all science is, you realize that those observations do not include what is important in life. Observations cannot make you happy.

You can observe what makes people "happy", whatever that means because it cannot be defined by observation, and make a list of such things, of what kinds of behaviors and experiences people will report makes them happy, but you will still not know what happiness is.

Suppose an alien or a robot wanted to study happiness and he made all these observations. Suppose he memorized every article on happiness that was ever written, every philosophers words, every scientific study about happiness and interviewed every person he could find about what made them happy.

But suppose he had never experienced happiness itself. Suppose he then criticized those who term themselves "happy" as being in a state of illusion, and that there was no such thing, because all that was real about happiness was happiness reports.

Suppose then he said that people should not seek to be happy because it was all an illusion anyway- and that they should just get on to the business of being logical about life and forget about such silly things as happiness or a feeling of peace and contentment, because after all, these were just biological brain states and not real at all.

Such brain states do not correspond to anything real, so they are illusions. Love actually is also in that category, so we can write that off as well. In fact all emotions, because they are illogical, should be abandoned as illusions. Because different things make different people happy, it cannot be "real"

That is exactly the position of those who criticize religious experience for the same reasons.

Yet we who have been happy know how it enriches our lives. We know what love is and how it is about the most important thing in human life.

The feeling of love and why it is important to mankind has nothing to do with it corresponding to any "reality" outside of itself. It becomes its own goal- people want to feel love and love others. People want to be happy as a goal in itself. It gives life meaning- and is not about observing happy conditions.

It is the same with religious experience. It is the experience itself which is sought- not the "objects" of that experience. Just like happiness, it is a subjective experience having nothing to do with observing the state in others- it is the subjective experience which is important. It is important to BE happy not to OBSERVE happiness.

It is just as important to EXPERIENCE religious experience for its own subjective importance, not to OBSERVE what induces religious experience in others.

[mfbukowski]

It occurred to me that the oath and covenant of the priesthood was given in 1832. It talks about both higher and lower priesthoods and names Aaron and Melchizedek in association with each.

The original handwritten copy is here: http://josephsmithpa...tion-book-1#138

It also mentions John in reference to the 'lesser priesthood.':

Also:

Given this was in writing before the 1833 publication, it's viable that in 1832 and 1833 the JSH 1:74 instruction to keep the angelic visitations and restorations secret was still in place for both. What changed after 1833 to make open what was secret? The Kirtland temple building project started in 1833. Perhaps the start of the new temple dispensation or the confidence of being established in Kirtland meant that being more open about angelic visitors was acceptable.

An excellent point!

[mfbukowski]

As already alluded to by MFB above, this is not merely a function of the 200-year gap. Contemporaries of Joseph Smith who were present during the laying of the roots reached radically different conclusions about the Prophet and his message, just as nearly 2000 years before that those who associated with Christ, listened to His teachings, and witnessed his miracles arrived at very different assessments of Him and His work. Merely being present doesn't seem to generate the certainty you seem to be wishing for.

The truth is that we tend to doubt our own spiritual experiences. That must be human nature because even many who saw the miracles of Christ ended up persecuting him. If witnessing miracles did not convert everyone, how much can a "burning in the bosom" do?

Faith is after all, "the substance of things hoped for and NOT SEEN" and that is the crux of the issue.

[canard78]

An excellent point!

You see... I do try to be balanced in my research journey I started the process of studying church historicity as a gesture to my wife who has left because of it (among other things). In doing so I predominantly study from church sources and always allow room for "on the other hand..."

And I couch any study in spiritually based faith.

[Nevo]

It occurred to me that the oath and covenant of the priesthood was given in 1832.... Given this was in writing before the 1833 publication, it's viable that in 1832 and 1833 the JSH 1:74 instruction to keep the angelic visitations and restorations secret was still in place for both.

While I believe that Joseph and Oliver experienced angelic visitations in 1829 (and 1830?), I am not sure that they understood clearly at the time exactly what "restorations" had actually taken place. Joseph's understanding of priesthood seemed to evolve between 1830 and 1835 and even through the Nauvoo period (see, e.g., D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; Gregory A. Prince, Power From On High; Mark Staker, Hearken O Ye People).

Also, I rather doubt that Joseph's remark in his history that "we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood" was still in force in 1832 and 1833 (I suspect Joseph was thinking here of the events of the summer of 1830—see Bushman, RSR, 116-118). Oliver, at least, does not seem to have been reticent about discussing angelic visitations prior to 1834. It was apparently a central feature of his earliest preaching: the Painesville Telegraph reported in November 1830 that Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels" (see also his recently discovered 1829 letter to Cornelius Blatchly).

As Gregory Prince has summarized, "early Mormon and non-Mormon records support the claim of divine restoration of authority, including (beginning in 1830) the appearance of angels, (beginning in late 1832 but not explicit until late 1834) the receipt of priesthood from angels, and (in 1835) the naming of angels" (Power From On High, 6). Why the sources unfold in this sequence is anyone's guess. But it seems a stretch to suggest, as Grant Palmer does, that Joseph simply invented the stories of angelic ordinations to bolster his authority in the wake of a credibility crisis brought about by the publication of Mormonism Unvailed. As Steven Harper notes, "Well before the conspiracy theory has Joseph in need of shoring up his authority by claiming to have received it from angels, his 1832 history plainly claims 'reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of Aangels to administer the letter of the Gospel,' followed by 'a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinance from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God'" (Harper, "Oliver Cowdery as Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," 83).

[canard78]

While I believe that Joseph and Oliver experienced angelic visitations in 1829 (and 1830?), I am not sure that they understood clearly at the time exactly what "restorations" had actually taken place. Joseph's understanding of priesthood seemed to evolve between 1830 and 1835 and even through the Nauvoo period (see, e.g., D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power; Gregory A. Prince, Power From On High; Mark Staker, Hearken O Ye People).

Also, I rather doubt that Joseph's remark in his history that "we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood" was still in force in 1832 and 1833 (I suspect Joseph was thinking here of the events of the summer of 1830—see Bushman, RSR, 116-118). Oliver, at least, does not seem to have been reticent about discussing angelic visitations prior to 1834. It was apparently a central feature of his earliest preaching: the Painesville Telegraph reported in November 1830 that Cowdery "pretends to have a divine mission, and to have seen and conversed with Angels" (see also his recently discovered 1829 letter to Cornelius Blatchly).

As Gregory Prince has summarized, "early Mormon and non-Mormon records support the claim of divine restoration of authority, including (beginning in 1830) the appearance of angels, (beginning in late 1832 but not explicit until late 1834) the receipt of priesthood from angels, and (in 1835) the naming of angels" (Power From On High, 6). Why the sources unfold in this sequence is anyone's guess. But it seems a stretch to suggest, as Grant Palmer does, that Joseph simply invented the stories of angelic ordinations to bolster his authority in the wake of a credibility crisis brought about by the publication of Mormonism Unvailed. As Steven Harper notes, "Well before the conspiracy theory has Joseph in need of shoring up his authority by claiming to have received it from angels, his 1832 history plainly claims 'reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of Aangels to administer the letter of the Gospel,' followed by 'a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinance from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God'" (Harper, "Oliver Cowdery as Second Witness of Priesthood Restoration," 83).

Fascinating summary. I consider it a privilege to conversing with so many better read people.

I guess if they weren't hiding angels in 1833 that brings section 27 back into question as to why it was omitted from BoC and where the new verses came from in 1835. Oh well, "I don't know" will have to do.

[mfbukowski]

You see... I do try to be balanced in my research journey I started the process of studying church historicity as a gesture to my wife who has left because of it (among other things). In doing so I predominantly study from church sources and always allow room for "on the other hand..."

And I couch any study in spiritually based faith.

I really do enjoy your posts!

[canard78]

I really do enjoy your posts!

Thank you. The feeling's very mutual