Question About The Sealing Keys

[Paddy]

I am looking at the lesson for next Sunday about the restoration of the Priesthood – I teach the adult Sunday School. While reading the scriptural texts regarding Priesthood Keys it appeared to me that it is not explicitly stated that Elijah committed the Keys of Sealing to JS. All the other Keys are mentioned. All Elijah does in D&C 110:13-16 is provide commentary toward the end of the miraculous visions. I am not disputing that JS received the keys of Sealing, just the timing.

6 years prior to this event it seems that JS had a pretty good idea about the “Keys” of the priesthood particularly in D&C 27. Could it be that JS had already received the necessary “keys” at that time (1830)? And the event in the Kirtland temple was simply a recommitting of Keys?

Has someone already seen this “discrepancy” and commented on it? I would be interested to read more.

Thanks

Paddy

[MormonMason]

I do not really see it as a discrepancy. Sealing keys are among those going with apostleship. He received those keys when he was ordained by Peter, James and John. However, there were additional sealing keys that were committed by Elijah that involved genealogy and seeking one's ancestors. Notice that baptism for the dead came after Kirtland and not before. At least this is the way I always have seen it all and how it relates. Other than that I have given it little thought.

[Cobalt-70]

The idea that Elijah had something to do with keys relating to "genealogy and seeking one's ancestors" is a 20th century invention. The church never really cared any more about genealogy than the rest of the world until Wilford Woodruff's revelation of 1994 jettisoning the law of adoption. It was only from that point onward that genealogy became an important part of Mormonism, and the theology of Elijah was retroactively re-imagined to support the idea of genealogy.

Elijah was identified with Malachi 4:6 pretty early, but 19th century Mormons interpreted that scripture (about turning hearts of fathers to children, etc., and vice versa) differently than we do now. It was about the restoration in modern times of ancient covenants, such as the Abrahamic covenant. See, e.g., D&C 98:16-17. In D&C 110:13-16 (dated 1836), Elijah is described as coming to provide the "keys of this dispensation." In JS-H 38-39 (dated 1838), Elijah is described as planting within the hearts of Smith's generation "the promises made to the fathers" (i.e., Abraham and the other ancient prophets). So all this had absolutely nothing to do with genealogy work.

In 1840, Smith cited Elijah when he discussed the brand new doctrine of baptism for the dead. He referred to a "welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children" (D&C 128:18). But this was not the sealing power. This was the power of baptism for the dead, as the verse explicitly says. What did Elijah have to do with this? Because as Smith said, "it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time" (v. 18). So Elijah's role was not (as Smith understood it circa 1840) to restore the sealing power. It was to weld all dispensations together and unite the ancient keys of the fathers with the children. And part of that was the new doctrine of baptism for the dead.

But it was never a requirement that one performing baptism for the dead must possess the "sealing power," as that power came to be understood in the 20th century. There was a "sealing power" understood in the 1830s, but that power was understood as coming to anyone who participated in any one of the various versions of the endowment, including the 1831 "endowment" in which the first High Priests were ordained, and the 1836 "endowment" in the Kirtland temple. This was not the "sealing power" we understand today.

It was not really until 1918 that the mythology was developed regarding Elijah and his modern "sealing power" as it relates to genealogy. (See D&C 138:47-48) In that year, Joseph F. Smith built upon Wilford Woodruff's idea that children should be sealed in a line to their actual ancestors, and that these ancestors would be taking the missionary discussions in the spirit world. That is when genealogy became an important element of Mormonism. Elijah's visit in 1836 was then re-imagined to be a visit in which he restored a "sealing power" which allowed temple sealings to form a line between Mormons and their ancestors. This is an interpretation of Elijah's 1836 visit that would have been news to Joseph Smith.

[MormonMason]

It is a curious thing, then, as to why they were commanded to "inquire diligently concerning the more ancient inhabitants and founders" of Salem, MA.

This is also a curiosity as well, considering that it sounds awfully familiar to modern Latter-day Saints when it was spoken in the time of someone who supposedly would have known nothing about such practices of redeeming and sealing their dead after inquiring after them, if not involving genealogies:

But how are they to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them; and herein is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, which fulfills the mission of Elijah. And I would to God that this temple was now done, that we might go into it, and go to work and improve our time, and make use of the seals while they are on earth.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 6:184)

[Alan]

What was the 1836 kirtland endowment?

What did it consist of?

[Blah]

What was the 1836 kirtland endowment?

What did it consist of?

My understanding is that the Kirtland endowment was essentially what we now consider the initiatory ordinances.

[pmccombs1]

It was not really until 1918 that the mythology was developed regarding Elijah and his modern "sealing power" as it relates to genealogy. (See D&C 138:47-48) In that year, Joseph F. Smith built upon Wilford Woodruff's idea that children should be sealed in a line to their actual ancestors, and that these ancestors would be taking the missionary discussions in the spirit world. That is when genealogy became an important element of Mormonism. Elijah's visit in 1836 was then re-imagined to be a visit in which he restored a "sealing power" which allowed temple sealings to form a line between Mormons and their ancestors. This is an interpretation of Elijah's 1836 visit that would have been news to Joseph Smith.

Yours may be an important argument, since the origins of section 110 are... odd. I believe that Joseph Smith may have been quite unaware of Elijah's 1836 visit and that he continued teaching, into the Nauvoo period, that Elijah had yet to come.

[Alan]

My understanding is that the Kirtland endowment was essentially what we now consider the initiatory ordinances.

Fascinating.

Is there any reference for that?

[volgadon]

Yours may be an important argument, since the origins of section 110 are... odd. I believe that Joseph Smith may have been quite unaware of Elijah's 1836 visit and that he continued teaching, into the Nauvoo period, that Elijah had yet to come.

The nature of the evidence doesn't really support such a claim. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58785-what-does-dc-10912-mean/page__hl__%20denver%20%20snuffer%20%20elijah

[CV75]

Has someone already seen this “discrepancy”

Who is to say that the others named in D&C 101 did not restore the various keys under Elijah’s direction because he had delegated those keys to them in the first place? Adam delegated his keys to others, and they subsequently delegated them to yet others throughout the generations and dispensations. He is eventually to receive reports, presumably passed through the chain/hierarchy in reverse, prior to returning the keys to Christ at Adom-ondi-Ahman.

My read is that the keys of sealing, turning the hearts, and the welding link of baptism are actually the same set of keys, and Elijah headed up their restoration under some iteration of delegation from Adam. The four terms, (seal, weld, link and turn--which conveys both uniting and repenting) are synonymous terms for the same result. Sealing and heart-turning are fairly easy to see; the role of baptism may be a little more of a stretch because the sealing and turning in this case is in relation to the Lord Himself and not to family members, but the relationship that baptism opens up with the Lord is fundamental to all other eternal relationships.

It would seem that passage into the earth from heaven is a priesthood ordinance. If so, the ordinance would be repeated when the spirit is united with the flesh, as will other pre-mortal covenants. This is done by being “born in the covenant.” But since this is realized only for a very few (by virtue of the parents’ extant sealing to each other), the vast majority have to do it in the temple, where the mortal birth is made to be just as if it was in the covenant all along.

The sealing of children to parents back to Adam answers to the pre-mortal administration of Adam to his posterity “unto the latest generation (D&C 53:56),” the overwhelmingly vast majority of whom were not present in the flesh at the time of his blessing and prediction of “whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.”

The Abrahamic covenant is named for one of the men “by whom the promises remain” as a specific priesthood-covenant expression of the overarching blessing given by Adam’s exercise of his keys. The dispensation of the fullness of times expands the application of the Abrahamic covenant to bring all of God’s children into the fullness of Adam’s original blessing, by enabling people to make in the flesh or by proxy the premortal covenant to fulfill our probation by being united as a human family to Christ. This uniting is along generational lines (couples, ancestors, descendants) to Adam and then to Christ.

The Abrahamic covenant (a subset of the Adamic covenant) naturally entails a turning of the hearts of the fathers and children to each other. This is the result of Elijah’s keys (which are also a subset of the Adamic key), and is as much in force among those of the covenant as those without, just as the key for passage into mortality is.

The emphasis on a Church-operated genealogy program is not so much the result of a key specific to genealogy, but an application or an outgrowth of that key which governs Adam’s gateway blessing into the physical expression of God’s family (both mortal and post-mortal, and also immortal). This explains the general enthusiasm for family connections and research irrespective of the formal LDS genealogy program, just as birth into mortality can occur without the parents’ priesthood covenant having been made.

[pmccombs1]

The nature of the evidence doesn't really support such a claim. http://www.mormondia...snuffer elijah

What shall I make of section 110? On one hand, there is the claim that the section is found last in Warren Cowdery's book and that it may have been written at a later time, and of course there is the 3rd person thing. There is also the assertion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never spoke of the incident, and that Joseph Smith continued to teach the future coming of Elijah after 1836 as HC 4:207-212 seems to indicate.

Now, the editorial note that you provided from the JS Papers appears to beg the question, since it is apparently written from a faithful point of view. Because the editor assumes that this is a recording of a legitimate event, it is also assumed that certain details could therefore only have been known to those present (JS and Oliver Cowdery), hence the Warren Cowdery text must have relied upon an original, non-extant source and that for some reason he had a habit of changing POV in his recordings (I can accept the POV thing). But this editorial note is a possible explanation that would itself require evidence (not forthcoming); it does not constitute evidence.

Duncan followed up in that same thread with a number of sources, not all of which I was able to verify. They were sources from a 3rd party, not ideal; and the ones I did find (letter no. 8, pg 332 of Divine Manifestations, and D&C 2), didn't seem to support his argument, in my view. In other words, I was not at all satisfied with the "evidence."

So, I think the nature of the evidence does indeed support some level of doubt as to the veracity of section 110, at least from what I have been able to investigate myself. And I'm sure Brother Snuffer, with his experience as a lawyer, is quite in the habit of investigating the evidence very carefully before shooting off his mouth. I understand his claims are generally well-researched. But then, I don't know him.

I am looking at the problem as a skeptic, if not impartially, however. I may be wrong. That is my disclaimer.

In any case, if priesthood keys are not tied to Elijah, then I think this problem is not critical at all.

[volgadon]

What shall I make of section 110? On one hand, there is the claim that the section is found last in Warren Cowdery's book and that it may have been written at a later time, and of course there is the 3rd person thing. There is also the assertion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never spoke of the incident, and that Joseph Smith continued to teach the future coming of Elijah after 1836 as HC 4:207-212 seems to indicate.

I looked up your reference, not very strong. Also look at his other uses of "dispensation."

[Ahab]

...

Loved all that you said. +1 to you my friend. Very well said.

Also wanted to say that the main purpose of creating this Earth was not only to give us a place where we would obtain a (or another) physical body, as is often said as it that is THE big reason, but also to organize us into families, all being within the one main family, to make it easier to work both for and with each other. Think of how much better we're organized now by having parents with children, which everyone being a child with parents. Not that we're all working together as a family as well as we could, or should, but the potential is there.for all of us and when it works well there is no better way for all of it to work, as each child can learn directly from his or her parents who in turn learn from their parents etc etc etc, even while all of us can get to know everyone else in our own family tree and others who aren't as directly related to us. Hard to put into words how awesome and beautiful a family is, but it's definitely one of the best "organizations" any one of us can ever be a part of. And if it doesn't work as well as we'd like it to, we can always work on making it better, and better, with people in our family to help us.

It's not as if the one we think of as our Father in heaven is the only person who matters to us, as if only he is important to us. We have many fathers, and we can all lay hold on the promises that have been given to our fathers just as Abraham wanted to obtain those same promises. He wasn't the first one to do that either, ya know. He was only doing what his fathers had done before him.

[MormonMason]

Fascinating.

Is there any reference for that?

Various statements of several leaders of the Church who were there to witness the ordinances and events. The closest equivalent is what we now call Initiatories, or washings and anointings. The endowment itself in Kirtland was the endowment of the Spirit to most of the participants in the ordinances, preparatory to missionaries going into all the world. Here is what President Brigham Young said about the situation:

Without revelation, Joseph could not know what was wanting, any more than any other man, and, without commandment, the Church were too few in numbers, too weak in faith, and too poor in purse, to attempt such a mighty enterprise. But by means of all these stimulants, a mere handful of men living on air, and a little hominy and milk, and often salt or no salt when milk could not be had; the great Prophet Joseph, in the stone quarry, quarrying rock with his own hands; and the few then in the Church, following his example of obedience and diligence wherever most needed; with laborers on the walls, holding the sword in one hand to protect themselves from the mob, while they placed the stone and moved the trowel with the other, the Kirtland Temple,--the second House of the Lord, that we have any published record of on the earth, was so far completed as to be dedicated. And those first Elders who helped to build it, received a portion of their first endowments, or we might say more clearly, some of the first, or introductory, or initiatory ordinances, preparatory to an endowment.

The preparatory ordinances there administered, though accompanied by the ministration of angels, and the presence of the Lord Jesus, were but a faint similitude of the ordinances of the House of the Lord in their fulness; yet many, through the instigation of the devil, thought they had received all, and knew as much as God; they have apostatized, and gone to hell. But be assured, brethren, there are but few, very few of the Elders of Israel, now on earth, who know the meaning of the word endowment. To know, they must experience; and to experience, a Temple must be built.

(Journal of Discourses 2:31, as cited from LDS Library 2006)

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[The Nehor]

The idea that Elijah had something to do with keys relating to "genealogy and seeking one's ancestors" is a 20th century invention. The church never really cared any more about genealogy than the rest of the world until Wilford Woodruff's revelation of 1994 jettisoning the law of adoption. It was only from that point onward that genealogy became an important part of Mormonism, and the theology of Elijah was retroactively re-imagined to support the idea of genealogy.

I must have skipped that general conference.

[MormonMason]

I looked up your reference, not very strong. Also look at his other uses of "dispensation."

I agree with you. Consider the following journal account from 1840, wherein the fact that "Elijah has come" is briefly mentioned as partial reasoning on the part of the writer that it was evil spirits that were in a particular place and not the real Elijah and others.

10th [May, 1840], Sunday. Went to hear a Mr. Burwell and Evningite preach and one of the elders arose and spoke a few minutes, during which he said that the forerunner of Christ, which was John, was to prepare the way for Christ and that ministry was Elias and that Elijah must come again to prepare the way for the second coming. And Mr. Burwell cried out with a remarkable strange and loud voice; said he had come and it appeared to me that the house was filled with evil spirits and [p.5] although Elijah has come, yet I think that the spirit by which he spoke was an evil one for it brought darkness and fear instead of light and love on the glory of the Only Begotten. And during the time Mr. B. [burwell] was preaching, many strong, invective ... thrown upon them that came into this country, Canada, a land of royalty, and stole away the people and took them into a land of lawlessness and led them into the wilderness to give all their prophets to their idol. They had let up and argued strangely that if we should give away all at once, if the Lord should call for a tithe on a sacrifice, we would have nothing to give. I think strange logic and stated that it was the devil speaking through them and the Lord would blast it and it would come to naught, for it was the work of the devil. He said their main child is Christ and the church.

(Journal of Arza Adams, May 10, 1840, BYU Special Collections, in Writings of Early Latter-day Saints, 4-5; as contained in LDS Library 2006)

It seems to me that if Eljiah had not already come and the writer know not about it that he might not have reasoned as he had. It is slim evidence but it is evidence that the event was known to a number of people at that early time. Of course, I am sure that there are other interpretations that can be placed on this text by those inclined to do so. I am away from my books at the present so I don't really have other texts I can consult for additional, supporting material. I am reasonably sure I also read an account discussing the coming of Elijah in Kirtland in a handwritten document in the Joseph Smith collection but I do not recall at the moment what or where that was. I'll have to try to remember and see if it can be found--when I get the chance.

Edited February 25, 2013 by MormonMason

[Paddy]

That for the replies. It has become apparent from your responses that the role of Elijah is quite broad. But I was wondering the sealing keys/power specifically. We use D&C 110 as a proof text for the committing of the sealing power by Elijah but the section does not state that claim. It is hard to appeal to this section when it does not say what we believe it says.

Are there other contemporary source that hint to JS received the sealing keys in the Kirtland temple in 1836? I'll keep looking as well!!

Paddy

[pmccombs1]

I looked up your reference, not very strong. Also look at his other uses of "dispensation."

Just for the record, the passage in question from HC 4 is this one from 1840:

"Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all ordinances may be attended to in righteousness...'And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord,' etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness."

It may not be damning evidence, but I'm not satisfied with "other uses of 'dispensation'" as somehow answering it. Regardless of the meaning of "dispensation" in this passage, the use of the helping verb "will" certainly suggests that JS is talking about a future occurrence from his point of reference in 1840. I think the verb phrase, "Will ... Restore" is pretty clear and not suitable for speaking of things that have happened in the past, if one wishes to be clear. Along with this restoration, as JS continues, we are to understand that animal sacrifices will be reinstated as well as "every ordinance belonging to the priesthood." When? "When the Temple of the Lord shall be built." What temple is JS speaking of in 1840? Kirtland?

I would like to see some of those passages that I wasn't able to find from Duncan's post in that earlier thread, which he claims lends weight to the Elijah event. Maybe there are some good ones there. I'd also like to examine a couple of other talks from JS himself, from January and March of 1844, wherein it is said that he also speaks of the coming of Elijah as a future event.

It does seem strange to me that, while JS and Oliver did write about many of their visitations, they did not write or comment about this one. Why would their journals and teachings mention other similar visitations while this one thing is only hinted at, if you squint just right, by people not directly connected with the event? Why leave it to a chance discovery, in 1850, by Orson Pratt? It seems apocryphal to me.

[Maidservant]

This was not the "sealing power" we understand today.

Which is what?

Because I understand "sealing" pretty broadly.

Always love your detailed accounting of the development of ideas.

[drums12]

The idea that Elijah had something to do with keys relating to "genealogy and seeking one's ancestors" is a 20th century invention. The church never really cared any more about genealogy than the rest of the world until Wilford Woodruff's revelation of 1994 jettisoning the law of adoption. It was only from that point onward that genealogy became an important part of Mormonism, and the theology of Elijah was retroactively re-imagined to support the idea of genealogy.

Elijah was identified with Malachi 4:6 pretty early, but 19th century Mormons interpreted that scripture (about turning hearts of fathers to children, etc., and vice versa) differently than we do now. It was about the restoration in modern times of ancient covenants, such as the Abrahamic covenant. See, e.g., D&C 98:16-17. In D&C 110:13-16 (dated 1836), Elijah is described as coming to provide the "keys of this dispensation." In JS-H 38-39 (dated 1838), Elijah is described as planting within the hearts of Smith's generation "the promises made to the fathers" (i.e., Abraham and the other ancient prophets). So all this had absolutely nothing to do with genealogy work.

In 1840, Smith cited Elijah when he discussed the brand new doctrine of baptism for the dead. He referred to a "welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children" (D&C 128:18). But this was not the sealing power. This was the power of baptism for the dead, as the verse explicitly says. What did Elijah have to do with this? Because as Smith said, "it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time" (v. 18). So Elijah's role was not (as Smith understood it circa 1840) to restore the sealing power. It was to weld all dispensations together and unite the ancient keys of the fathers with the children. And part of that was the new doctrine of baptism for the dead.

But it was never a requirement that one performing baptism for the dead must possess the "sealing power," as that power came to be understood in the 20th century. There was a "sealing power" understood in the 1830s, but that power was understood as coming to anyone who participated in any one of the various versions of the endowment, including the 1831 "endowment" in which the first High Priests were ordained, and the 1836 "endowment" in the Kirtland temple. This was not the "sealing power" we understand today.

It was not really until 1918 that the mythology was developed regarding Elijah and his modern "sealing power" as it relates to genealogy. (See D&C 138:47-48) In that year, Joseph F. Smith built upon Wilford Woodruff's idea that children should be sealed in a line to their actual ancestors, and that these ancestors would be taking the missionary discussions in the spirit world. That is when genealogy became an important element of Mormonism. Elijah's visit in 1836 was then re-imagined to be a visit in which he restored a "sealing power" which allowed temple sealings to form a line between Mormons and their ancestors. This is an interpretation of Elijah's 1836 visit that would have been news to Joseph Smith.

I took a D&C class at BYU Idaho several years ago, and the professor, Bruce Satterfield, talked in detail about this. His opinion is that although Joseph had the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods before 1836, the ordinances done by that authority couldn't be "bound in heaven," or "sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise" until the sealing keys had been restored. This makes sense to me in a way. I'm not speaking for Brother Satterfield either. It's been almost ten years since I took that class, and I may be remembering things wrongly. For that matter I may have misunderstood him at the time. In any case, the following link seems to absolutely refute your claim that geneology and sealing to our ancestors is "a 20th century invention."

http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/Elias,Elijah,Messiah.HTML

[Duncan]

Just for the record, the passage in question from HC 4 is this one from 1840:

"Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all ordinances may be attended to in righteousness...'And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord,' etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness."

It may not be damning evidence, but I'm not satisfied with "other uses of 'dispensation'" as somehow answering it. Regardless of the meaning of "dispensation" in this passage, the use of the helping verb "will" certainly suggests that JS is talking about a future occurrence from his point of reference in 1840. I think the verb phrase, "Will ... Restore" is pretty clear and not suitable for speaking of things that have happened in the past, if one wishes to be clear. Along with this restoration, as JS continues, we are to understand that animal sacrifices will be reinstated as well as "every ordinance belonging to the priesthood." When? "When the Temple of the Lord shall be built." What temple is JS speaking of in 1840? Kirtland?

I would like to see some of those passages that I wasn't able to find from Duncan's post in that earlier thread, which he claims lends weight to the Elijah event. Maybe there are some good ones there. I'd also like to examine a couple of other talks from JS himself, from January and March of 1844, wherein it is said that he also speaks of the coming of Elijah as a future event.

It does seem strange to me that, while JS and Oliver did write about many of their visitations, they did not write or comment about this one. Why would their journals and teachings mention other similar visitations while this one thing is only hinted at, if you squint just right, by people not directly connected with the event? Why leave it to a chance discovery, in 1850, by Orson Pratt? It seems apocryphal to me.

Everything I know I got from this source

Trever Anderson, “History and Early Use of Doctrine and Covenants Section 110, 1836–1893”

it's online at BYU's Harold B. Lee Library, I printed it off from another site that is sadly defunct.

[T-Shirt]

What shall I make of section 110? On one hand, there is the claim that the section is found last in Warren Cowdery's book

It wasn't Warren Cowdery's book, it was Joseph Smith's journal, which Cowdery was responsible for along with the HIstory of the Church. He was filling in for Waren Parrish who was preparing to leave on a mission.

and that it may have been written at a later time

Much of Joseph Smith's journal was written after the fact, however, section 110 had to have been recorded sometime before May 5, 1836. Since Parrish returned the Journal and History to Joseph Smith by that date, after having taken them back from Cowdery, and recording two more months of history. Section 110 was likely written well before May 5th. So, it cannot be disputed that Cowdery wrote the account, at the very most, one month after it occurred, and quite likely, very close to April 3rd.

, and of course there is the 3rd person thing.

That was Cowdery's style. Section 110 isn't the only thing he wrote in the third person.

There is also the assertion that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery never spoke of the incident,

There is no way to know that they "never spoke of the incident", we simply have no written record following Cowdery's journal entry.

and that Joseph Smith continued to teach the future coming of Elijah after 1836 as HC 4:207-212 seems to indicate.

This is quite dubious. Do you have other examples?

Now, the editorial note that you provided from the JS Papers appears to beg the question, since it is apparently written from a faithful point of view. Because the editor assumes that this is a recording of a legitimate event, it is also assumed that certain details could therefore only have been known to those present (JS and Oliver Cowdery), hence the Warren Cowdery text must have relied upon an original, non-extant source and that for some reason he had a habit of changing POV in his recordings (I can accept the POV thing). But this editorial note is a possible explanation that would itself require evidence (not forthcoming); it does not constitute evidence.

That is not completely accurate. The editorial comment suggests, given that the vision was experienced by Joseph and Oliver, exclusively, the only way Warren Cowdery could have gotten the information was by copying from a non-extant copy or by dictation from Joseph or Oliver. You left that part out. I suppose it is possible that within the few days Cowdery had the journal, he could have made the whole thing up, but there is precisely zero evidence for this and it seems a bit far fetched to boot.

So, I think the nature of the evidence does indeed support some level of doubt as to the veracity of section 110, at least from what I have been able to investigate myself. And I'm sure Brother Snuffer, with his experience as a lawyer, is quite in the habit of investigating the evidence very carefully before shooting off his mouth. I understand his claims are generally well-researched. But then, I don't know him.

It doesn't appear to me that he investigated the matter all that thoroughly.

It does seem strange to me that, while JS and Oliver did write about many of their visitations, they did not write or comment about this one. Why would their journals and teachings mention other similar visitations while this one thing is only hinted at, if you squint just right, by people not directly connected with the event? Why leave it to a chance discovery, in 1850, by Orson Pratt?

It doesn't appear that you are too familiar with the history of how the various versions of the Doctrine & Covenants came to be or with the development of the History of the Church. It was not left to a chance discovery, the vision was recorded right where it was supposed to be, in Joseph Smith's journal. The next version of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1844, but it was, essentially, a reprint of the 1835 edition, with a few changes. The next version to be published was in 1876 which added 26 new revelations (including Section 110), 25 of which, all happened prior to the 1844 edition, but were not included in that version. The date of publication has very little relevance to the reality of an event. Incidentally, Section 109, the dedication of the Kirtland Temple was also absent from the Doctrine & Covenants until 1876

Edited February 26, 2013 by T-Shirt

[volgadon]

Just for the record, the passage in question from HC 4 is this one from 1840:

"Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all ordinances may be attended to in righteousness...'And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord,' etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness."

It may not be damning evidence, but I'm not satisfied with "other uses of 'dispensation'" as somehow answering it. Regardless of the meaning of "dispensation" in this passage, the use of the helping verb "will" certainly suggests that JS is talking about a future occurrence from his point of reference in 1840. I think the verb phrase, "Will ... Restore" is pretty clear and not suitable for speaking of things that have happened in the past, if one wishes to be clear. Along with this restoration, as JS continues, we are to understand that animal sacrifices will be reinstated as well as "every ordinance belonging to the priesthood." When? "When the Temple of the Lord shall be built." What temple is JS speaking of in 1840? Kirtland?

I would like to see some of those passages that I wasn't able to find from Duncan's post in that earlier thread, which he claims lends weight to the Elijah event. Maybe there are some good ones there. I'd also like to examine a couple of other talks from JS himself, from January and March of 1844, wherein it is said that he also speaks of the coming of Elijah as a future event.

The verb "will" here is used when refering to a past event. That is, Joseph was elucidating the meaning of Malachi's prophecy when it was delivered.

It does seem strange to me that, while JS and Oliver did write about many of their visitations, they did not write or comment about this one. Why would their journals and teachings mention other similar visitations while this one thing is only hinted at, if you squint just right, by people not directly connected with the event? Why leave it to a chance discovery, in 1850, by Orson Pratt? It seems apocryphal to me.

Not as odd as Oliver's own brother writing something in an official capacity about Joseph and Oliver's that somehow was never brought to his or Joseph's attention.

[Cobalt-70]

It is a curious thing, then, as to why they were commanded to "inquire diligently concerning the more ancient inhabitants and founders" of Salem, MA.

Because Joseph Smith believed there was ancient buried treasure in Salem, buried there by the ancient inhabitants and founders of Salem. It doesn't have anything to do with genealogy.

This is also a curiosity as well, considering that it sounds awfully familiar to modern Latter-day Saints when it was spoken in the time of someone who supposedly would have known nothing about such practices of redeeming and sealing their dead after inquiring after them, if not involving genealogies:

But how are they to become saviors on Mount Zion? By building their temples, erecting their baptismal fonts, and going forth and receiving all the ordinances, baptisms, confirmations, washings, anointings, ordinations and sealing powers upon their heads, in behalf of all their progenitors who are dead, and redeem them that they may come forth in the first resurrection and be exalted to thrones of glory with them; and herein is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, which fulfills the mission of Elijah. And I would to God that this temple was now done, that we might go into it, and go to work and improve our time, and make use of the seals while they are on earth.

(Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 6:184)

This quotation, given in 1844, still does not refer to the genealogical "sealing" of the dead as we know it today. Here, the 1844 understanding of "sealing" is still not the "sealing power" as we know today. It does not even refer to the "sealing" ordinance here. What it means is that when one's progenitors are baptized, confirmed, or anointed, the current generation is "bound" to their progenitors by doing this work, such as baptism, for them. It is a more metaphorical binding than what we think of today when we use the word "sealing power."

[Cobalt-70]

I must have skipped that general conference.

Sorry. 1884.