New Video On Priesthood Restoration

[Hamba Tuhan]

These kinds of discussions always leave me feeling a bit dizzy. I'm a professional historian (PhD and work in an editorial position for an academic journal). The past is incomplete, messy, and open to all kinds of contestation. Interpretations do not arise inherently from data but from the interaction between those data and the interpretive frameworks (always based on unprovable assumptions) which we bring to bear on them. When this is all we have, it's a valuable exercise, but in the case of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we actually have an artefact in our midst. Why would we wander around amongst historical what-ifs, therefore, instead of just carefully examining the artefact itself? I wasn't present when Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, and it's possible that we don't have all of the details exactly right -- in fact, it would be odd if we did since that's simply not how history works -- but I've experienced that priesthood repeatedly firsthand, and I know that it's real.

It's like finding a perpetual motion machine in the desert and then writing all kinds of papers about how it's impossible for such a machine to exist ... all whilst it just keeps spinning and spinning without any input of energy.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

These kinds of discussions always leave me feeling a bit dizzy. I'm a professional historian (PhD and work in an editorial position for an academic journal). The past is incomplete, messy, and open to all kinds of contestation. Interpretations do not arise inherently from data but from the interaction between those data and the interpretive frameworks (always based on unprovable assumptions) which we bring to bear on them. When this is all we have, it's a valuable exercise, but in the case of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we actually have an artefact in our midst. Why would we wander around amongst historical what-ifs, therefore, instead of just carefully examining the artefact itself? I wasn't present when Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to Joseph and Oliver, and it's possible that we don't have all of the details exactly right -- in fact, it would be odd if we did since that's simply not how history works -- but I've experienced that priesthood repeatedly firsthand, and I know that it's real.

It's like finding a perpetual motion machine in the desert and then writing all kinds of papers about how it's impossible for such a machine to exist ... all whilst it just keeps spinning and spinning without any input of energy.

Isn't it a little different to your analogy? The Melchizedek Priesthood and the machine in the dessert both exist. The question is their method of creaction. If someone told you the machine was created one way and then the same person later said it was made in another more miraculous way, you might question why the story had changed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The question is their method of creaction.

Not for me. If the Melchizedek Priesthood as defined exists, then it (a) came from the Lord whose priesthood it is and (b) came to a man who must have been a prophet. End of question.

[cdowis]

With Dan's participation here, the issue is whether the artifact actually exists, or is just a "pious fraud".

[Hamba Tuhan]

With Dan's participation here, the issue is whether the artifact actually exists, or is just a "pious fraud".

I realise that, but the direct approach to the issue is not to play around with the fragments of the past whilst ignoring the artefact itself because one already 'knows' such things can't exist.

[canard78]

Not for me. If the Melchizedek Priesthood as defined exists, then it (a) came from the Lord whose priesthood it is and (b) came to a man who must have been a prophet. End of question.

The question only ends if you have that spiritual witness. That allows you to be independent of the historical evidence.

When I was a Branch President a member came to me with doubts about the authenticity of the First Vision. This of course brings everything else into question. She had read the multiple versions and questioned whether it had really happened or was an invention of Joseph to make his role as prophet and leader stronger.

I had two options... 1) Tell her to go away and pray about it and rely on the answer from the spirit 2) Go to the sources and help her see how even though a first reading of the accounts seem like a contradiction but actually complement each other.

So regarding the Priesthood - it exists as a function of our church organisation and most of us has a piece of paper trace our priesthood lineage back to Oliver or Joseph. But its existence offers no proof of whether they got it from angels, from a bestowal from the spirit or if they made up the angelic visit.

If I had a young priest come to me and ask about the origins of the priesthood having watched a video like Dan's, should I say 'the priesthood exists, stop worrying about it' or try to address the historical issues and help him resolve his concerns?

FAIR tries as best it can to do the second and not simply say 'I know this, now stop worrying about it.'

For example: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision

[canard78]

I realise that, but the direct approach to the issue is not to play around with the fragments of the past whilst ignoring the artefact itself because one already 'knows' such things can't exist.

But surely as a professional historian you should appreciate more than many that things exist but with debatable origins. The question here is not whether or not LDS church in the 21st C lay claim to having the priesthood. The question is whether the core events that lead to us making that claim happened or not.

I find etymology and the origin of idioms very interesting. There are some phrases that have no known origin... but they still exist. There are others that are incorrectly attributed.

For example: "Let them eat cake" is an English phrase sometimes used in response to someone complaining about a problem. The phrase is used to indicate the hearer doesn't really care about the problem and isn't going to engage in it. If asked, most would say the phrase comes from Marie Antoinette when the 18th C French were starving. In reality, she doesn't seem to have said it. It was actually in writing as a phrase before her and there's no record of her actually saying it, it was just attributed to her much later because of her reputation for decadence in the face of abject French poverty. Regardless of who said it first, it now exists as a phrase and even though Marie Antoinette probably didn't say it, most people are convinced she did.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/let-them-eat-cake.html

We can either discuss the Priesthood restoration as historians or as believing LDS. Doing the latter means there's really no discussion to be had with Dan beyond "I know, you don't."

If we want to discuss the Priesthood origins as historians (and I apply that word to myself as only a hobbyist and an History undergraduate... not a professional), then we need to examine the evidence of the 1800s, not the evidence of today.

[canard78]

Unless things have changed, materials not distributed by the Church are not to be used in class unless produced by the teacher him/herself. This was instruction given to ward librarians and primary teachers during my time as both.

This never made sense to me in combination with all the additional aids sold in DB for Primary and YW teachers and it was generally ignored in many wards, especially in Utah, I've found.

The cynic in me wants to make a comment about monopoly/captive audience... but I'm not feeling excessively cynical today so I'll simply say that most people in UK ignore it too. We had a longer version of this video shown in Sunday School the other day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW579icDRSA

[cdowis]

The question only ends if you have that spiritual witness. That allows you to be independent of the historical evidence.

When I was a Branch President a member came to me with doubts about the authenticity of the First Vision. This of course brings everything else into question. She had read the multiple versions and questioned whether it had really happened or was an invention of Joseph to make his role as prophet and leader stronger.

I had two options... 1) Tell her to go away and pray about it and rely on the answer from the spirit 2) Go to the sources and help her see how even though a first reading of the accounts seem like a contradiction but actually complement each other.

"I know of a hundred excuses to leave the church, and only one reason to stay."

Edited January 22, 2013 by cdowis

[volgadon]

I had two options... 1) Tell her to go away and pray about it and rely on the answer from the spirit 2) Go to the sources and help her see how even though a first reading of the accounts seem like a contradiction but actually complement each other.

Personally, I would go for option 3, which is to have them pray about it and rely on the answer from the spirit, and use the sources to help them see how even though a first reading of the accounts seem like a contradiction there is a reasonable explanation.

[canard78]

"I know of a hundred excuses to leave the church, and only one reason to stay."

So why do the contributors to FARMS/NAMI and FAIR spend so many hours doing what they do if "all you need is prayer."

[canard78]

Personally, I would go for option 3, which is to have them pray about it and rely on the answer from the spirit, and use the sources to help them see how even though a first reading of the accounts seem like a contradiction there is a reasonable explanation.

Good point, option 3 is best of all. A + B = 3

So to the OP, we still have the challenge of answering B and explaining why an event in 1829 was relatively unheard of until 1835.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The question only ends if you have that spiritual witness. That allows you to be independent of the historical evidence.

Please note that I've made no mention whatsoever of a 'spiritual witness' on this topic. What allows one to be 'independent of the historical evidence' on this point is personal experience with the priesthood. It claims to be the power and authority to act in the name of God. That's a bold and specific claim, but it's perfectly testable in the here and now. If it works, it's real ... and was clearly restored via Joseph Smith.

So regarding the Priesthood - it exists as a function of our church organisation and most of us has a piece of paper trace our priesthood lineage back to Oliver or Joseph. But its existence offers no proof of whether they got it from angels, from a bestowal from the spirit or if they made up the angelic visit.

It's not the existence of the piece of paper that means anything; it's the actual priesthood itself. If it works as claimed -- and it does -- then it's not something Joseph and Oliver made up.

If I had a young priest come to me and ask about the origins of the priesthood having watched a video like Dan's, should I say 'the priesthood exists, stop worrying about it' or try to address the historical issues and help him resolve his concerns?

My advice to such a priest would be to faithfully exercise the priesthood authority he holds and then see what happens. Either accepting or rejecting the authenticity of an artefact by an appeal to the past is silly. I wouldn't want a priest to believe in the restoration of the priesthood just because the story of its restoration is pleasing any more than I would want him to reject the restoration of the priesthood because the story can be a bit convoluted. If necessary, the historical issues I would address with him would be the inevitable messiness of history, its dependence on interpretive assumptions, and the ease with which one can construct competing narratives.

As is the case with so many 'historical concerns' in the Church, the solution is not to wander backward into the irretrievable mists of the past but to focus on the reality of the present. As we engage faithfully with what we've been given, we'll know all we need to to counter criticisms purposely constructed by critics from the detritus of 'history'.

One very personal example: About four years ago, one of my Young Men was preparing to receive his patriarchal blessing, and he asked me to fast with him on the day. Later that morning, he came down sick with the flu and then had trouble at school, and he felt like everything was going wrong. In despair, he sent me a text message. Before responding, I prayed and asked that I'd know exactly what this boy needed to hear to help buoy him up for the experience which was to come that evening. Then I tapped out a very long (several screens in length) message in reply. At the home of the patriarch that evening, I sat and listened to the patriarch speak what I then thought were the exact words of counsel which I had many hours earlier written. When I checked, I was wrong, however; they were the exact same words except for one, and there the patriarch had used a synonym.

What's the point? Now, when I read critiques of the Book of Mormon which argue that Joseph Smith merely plagiarised passages from the Bible, putting, for example, the words of Paul into the mouth of Mormon, this point just slides right past me. I know from personal experience that God can -- and does! -- give close to the exact same words to different people. I've lived that reality.

Saints who regularly receive revelation don't tend to question whether the prophets are actually receiving revelation. Faithful members who've been assisted in the performance of their family and/or church duties by the ministration of angels don't tend to worry about whether or not the Prophet really conversed with angels. And on it goes.

Yes, it may be important to have handy answers to criticisms in the first instance to help get people to go forward in enough faith to test what we possess in the Church, but the real solution is in the living of it, not in the apologetics.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Mark Beesley]

I'm sure someone else will find the actual link, but it does indeed say in one of handbooks that only church materials should be used.

But then the handbook's not doctrine

. . . Enter BCSpace Stage Right . . .

[canard78]

Please note that I've made no mention whatsoever of a 'spiritual witness' on this topic. What allows one to be 'independent of the historical evidence' on this point is personal experience with the priesthood. It claims to be the power and authority to act in the name of God. That's a bold and specific claim, but it's perfectly testable in the here and now. If it works, it's real ... and was clearly restored via Joseph Smith.

It's not the existence of the piece of paper that means anything; it's the actual priesthood itself. If it works as claimed -- and it does -- then it's not something Joseph and Oliver made up.

My advice to such a priest would be to faithfully exercise the priesthood authority he holds and then see what happens. Either accepting or rejecting the authenticity of an artefact by an appeal to the past is silly. I wouldn't want a priest to believe in the restoration of the priesthood just because the story of its restoration is pleasing any more than I would want him to reject the restoration of the priesthood because the story can be a bit convoluted. If necessary, the historical issues I would address with him would be the inevitable messiness of history, its dependence on interpretive assumptions, and the ease with which one can construct competing narratives.

As is the case with so many 'historical concerns' in the Church, the solution is not to wander backward into the irretrievable mists of the past but to focus on the reality of the present. As we engage faithfully with what we've been given, we'll know all we need to to counter criticisms purposely constructed by critics from the detritus of 'history'.

One very personal example: About four years ago, one of my Young Men was preparing to receive his patriarchal blessing, and he asked me to fast with him on the day. Later that morning, he came down sick with the flu and then had trouble at school, and he felt like everything was going wrong. In despair, he sent me a text message. Before responding, I prayed and asked that I'd know exactly what this boy needed to hear to help buoy him up for the experience which was to come that evening. Then I tapped out a very long (several screens in length) message in reply. At the home of the patriarch that evening, I sat and listened to the patriarch speak what I then thought were the exact words of counsel which I had many hours earlier written. When I checked, I was wrong, however; they were the exact same words except for one, and there the patriarch had used a synonym.

What's the point? Now, when I read critiques of the Book of Mormon which argue that Joseph Smith merely plagiarised passages from the Bible, putting, for example, the words of Paul into the mouth of Mormon, this point just slides right past me. I know from personal experience that God can -- and does! -- give close to the exact same words to different people. I've lived that reality.

Saints who regularly receive revelation don't tend to question whether the prophets are actually receiving revelation. Faithful members who've been assisted in the performance of their family and/or church duties by the ministration of angels don't tend to worry about whether or not the Prophet really conversed with angels. And on it goes.

Yes, it may be important to have handy answers to criticisms in the first instance to help get people to go forward in enough faith to test what we possess in the Church, but the real solution is in the living of it, not in the apologetics.

Whether the priesthood 'works' or not would still be a subjective interpretation. It only works in your experience. You can present no evidence to any other person than yourself that it works.

Even priesthood blessings are incredibily sporadic and unreliable. One may die, one may live. We attribute the survivals to the priesthood and faith, while the people who die are 'meant to go.'

Even the fact that you had that amazing experience with the patriarchal blessing is only likely to convince you.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Friends: I have posted a new video on priesthood restoration.

Description: When Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery announced in the mid-1830s that they had been ordained by John the Baptist in May 1829 and subsequently by ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, it was a surprising disclosure—even for those who had been followers from the beginning. My purpose here is to discuss Joseph Smith’s original authority claims, to reconstruct key changes, and to suggest why the stories of angelic ordination were introduced.

I have not seen it, but I wish they could hire the best special effect company living, and make it look great, have a regular and bluer at blu ray. The only problem is that actors from post actors have gone onto great fame, but in very immoral roles. Ann Hathaway for example.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Whether the priesthood 'works' or not would still be a subjective interpretation. It only works in your experience. You can present no evidence to any other person than yourself that it works.

...

Even the fact that you had that amazing experience with the patriarchal blessing is only likely to convince you.

Which is precisely why our invitation must always be for people to come and experience it for themselves.

Even priesthood blessings are incredibily sporadic and unreliable. One may die, one may live. We attribute the survivals to the priesthood and faith, while the people who die are 'meant to go.'

This complaint would make sense only if the priesthood were some kind of magic which could be possessed and controlled and then used according to our personal whims. It's not. It's the power and authority to act in God's stead -- to connect with and then express His will. In doing so, people are always, reliably blessed. I'll repeat something I posted on a thread nearly two years ago:

I was as a missionary called upon to give a priesthood blessing to the grandfather of a woman whom I had earlier taught. Her family had given her endless grief over her conversion, but one of her elder sisters had relented and agreed that allowing the Elders to give a blessing couldn't hurt, so the two of of them rang us one night to let us know that they would be travelling up to the hospital the next evening for this purpose. That gave my companion and me 24 hours to prepare ourselves, and we prayed mightily and fasted in the hope that we could be instruments, not only in saving this man's life but in revealing God's power to this very non-supportive family.

As we prepared, I felt the Spirit of the Lord rest upon us in a significant way, and I was fully prepared to walk into the hospital room and command the unconscious but suffering man to be made whole. I had that much faith. My companion annointed, and then it was time for me to seal the annointing. I laid my hands on the recipient's head, spoke the opening formalities, and then stopped. In a way I still can't adequately explain, I 'saw' the man's impending death and clearly understood when it would happen. I had no idea what to do next. The words I had saved up in my mind all had to do with healing, not death. What does one say to a dying man? The silence worried my companion, who started tapping his fingers on the backs of my hands to urge me to proceed. Inside, I was praying like mad: 'Father, what do you want me to do since he's going to die?'

Then the inspiration came. I blessed him that he would pass away peacefully, surrounded by his loving family -- all of whom lived about 300 km away -- and that he would be free from the agonising pain he'd been experiencing up til that time.

When we'd finished, the four of us stepped out into the corridor, and the non-member sister asked, 'What the hell was that? N---- told me that you were going to heal him. Instead you blessed him that he'd die peacefully'. I tried to explain something about the will of God, but it was awkward. Then her demeanour changed, and she asked, 'When is he going to die?' For some reason, she thought I'd know that -- in retrospect, I'm still impressed by her trust! -- and, miraculously, I did. I told them that they had exactly one week and encouraged them to gather the family and get them to the hospital on the appointed day.

Amazingly, the entire family responded to this request and travelled up to the hospital to be there the following week. As they surrounded the bed of their loved one, he passed away peacefully as promised. The member granddaughter rang to tell us ... and to inform us that the nurses had said that they'd stopped the morphine injections the night we'd been there because her grandfather had stopped writhing in pain. He was still unconscious when he passed away, but he was comfortable and at peace.

The blessing my companion and I gave in no way altered the will of God, but it did reveal it and connect people with it, and THAT was a tremendous blessing to everyone involved. I talked to the member granddaughter just a few months ago. After many years, none of her family members have ever become members of the Church, but they all ceased giving her grief over her choice to become a Latter-day Saint. My companion and I were even invited to the funeral and treated as special guests of honour. In the end, all of our righteous desires were granted, but they were granted according to the Lord's wisdom, tailored to this specific situation.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[rodheadlee]

Good point, option 3 is best of all. A + B = 3

So to the OP, we still have the challenge of answering B and explaining why an event in 1829 was relatively unheard of until 1835.

If I told you that an Angel of the Lord fought an angel of darkness over me 12 years ago would you believe me? Would you believe me if I told you the day after it happened?

[cdowis]

Hamba,

Thank you for sharing that experience.

[Sevenbak]

After leaving the church, Oliver became an attorney and practiced law in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. He was elected Chief Prosecuting Attorney in Michigan, and was nearly elected to the state legislature in Wisconsin. During this time he never rescinded his testimony about the Book of Mormon, even though he was given every opportunity to do so. There was one occasion, during a trial in Michigan when his testimony was called into question. Here is the account of what happened as told by Judge C.M. Nelson, who witnessed the trial.

"When I was 21 years of age I was working my father's farm in Michigan. I had worked hard on the farm that summer and decided to take a day off, so went to the city. Near the courthouse I saw a great many people assembling and others walking that way, so I went over to see what was up. There was a jam in the courtroom, but being young and strong, I pushed my way close up to the center, where I found the prosecuting attorney addressing the court and jury in a murder trial. The prosecuting attorney was Oliver Cowdery, and he was giving his opening address in behalf of the state. After Cowdery sat down the attorney representing the prisoner arose and with taunting sarcasm said: "May it please the court and gentlemen of the jury, I see one Oliver Cowdery is going to reply to my argument. I wish he would tell us something about the Mormon Bible; something about that golden Bible that Joe Smith dug out of the hill; something about the great fraud he perpetrated upon the American people whereby he gained thousands of dollars. Now he seems to know so much about this poor prisoner, I wonder if he has forgotten all about Joe Smith and his connection with him.

"The speaker all the while sneering and pointing his finger in scorn at Cowdery in the hope of making him ridiculous before the court and jury. Everybody present began to wonder if they had been guilty of making such a mistake as choosing a Mormon for prosecuting attorney. Even the judge on the bench began looking with suspicion and distrust at the prosecuting attorney. The prisoner and his attorney became elated at the effect of the speech. People began asking, "Is he a Mormon?" Everybody wondered what Cowdery would say against such foul charges.

"Finally Oliver Cowdery arose, calm as a summer morning. I was within three feet of him. There was no hesitation, no fear, no anger in his voice, as he said: "May it please the court, and gentlemen of the jury, my brother attorney on the other side has charged me with connection with Joseph Smith and the golden Bible. The responsibility has been placed upon me, and I cannot escape reply. Before God and man I dare not deny what I have said, and what my testimony contains and as written and printed on the front page of the Book of Mormon. May it please your honor and gentlemen of the jury, this I say, I saw the angel and heard his voice—how can I deny it? It happened in the daytime when the sun was shining bright in the firmament; not in the night when I was asleep. That glorious messenger from heaven, dressed in white, standing above the ground, in a glory I have never seen anything to compare, with the sun insignificant in comparison, and these personages told us if we denied that testimony there is no forgiveness in this life nor in the world to come. Now how can I deny it—I dare not; I will not!"

http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/Oliver_Cowdery.html

[williamsmith]

From 1838 to 1848 Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated from the church and I would think that he would have renounced the restoration of the priesthood by John the Baptist and by Peter, James, and John if it were not true during his time of excommunication. But as far as I know, I don't think he ever renounced that angels appeared to him and restored the priesthood.

Yes, and not only did he not renounce anything related to the Restoration of the Church while being excommunicated, he before dying rejoined the Church and his dying breath he testified of the truth of the things he experienced.

[Jude2]

I found myself interested in what McLellin said; “An angel never ordained any man to any office since the world began”. He’s wrong and so this whole argument is wrong.

In Matt 16 the Lord tells Peter “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In the very next chapter Peter, James and John are taken up to a high mountain and the Savior is transfigured. Moses and Elijah appear to them. It is at that point they are ordained to the High Priesthood with all the Keys pertaining to it. They are also ordered “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead”. I have a feeling Joseph and Oliver were under the same constraining order until the full order or laws governing the priesthood was given, which would be D&C sec 107

The opening says;

Revelation on the priesthood, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, dated 28 March 1835 (see History of the Church, 2:209–17). On the date named, the Twelve met in council, confessing their individual weaknesses and shortcomings, expressing repentance, and seeking the further guidance of the Lord. They were about to separate on missions to assigned districts. Although portions of this section were received on the date named, the historical records affirm that various parts were received at sundry times, some as early as November 1831.

[cdowis]

There are several questions and issues directed to Dan, but he appears to have left the room.

Perhaps on another occasion, but I have addressed these questions to him on at least three occasions over the past year or so. I assume that he is still framing a response.

[Hamba Tuhan]

In the very next chapter Peter, James and John are taken up to a high mountain and the Savior is transfigured. Moses and Elijah appear to them. It is at that point they are ordained to the High Priesthood with all the Keys pertaining to it. They are also ordered “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead”.

Clearly the early apostles also needed to fabricate after-the-fact accounts of angelic visitations in order to shore up their shaky claims to authority ...

[Dan Vogel]

There are several questions and issues directed to Dan, but he appears to have left the room.

Perhaps on another occasion, but I have addressed these questions to him on at least three occasions over the past year or so. I assume that he is still framing a response.

I get tired of repeating myself to people who don't listen.