Plural Marriage Revelation Written By Request Of Hyrum Smith

[ALarson]

Here's more from Joseph on the "fullness of the Priesthood" or 2nd anointing:

 

27 August 1843: Fullness of the Priesthood Expounded 

 

This principle was made dramatically clear in a discourse given one month and a day before inaugurating the highest ordinances of the temple for the first time in this dispensation.(248) He began the doctrinal portion of his discourse by reading Hebrews 7 and observed that there were three orders of priesthood blessings referred to in this chapter of the New Testament. Those blessings were (1) The Levitical or Aaronic portion of the temple endowment (which the ancient Israelites had); (2) The Abrahamic Patriarchal portion of the temple ordinances, that is, the full temple endowment and eternal marriage; and, (3) The fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the power of a King and Priest to God (see Table 4, Chapter VII). Joseph Smith specifically said, as Brigham Young said three weeks before, that only priesthood blessings (1) and (2) had yet been administered in the Church. He said in this public discourse that the power of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood was the "power of an endless life."(249) Jesus Christ obtained it because he set up [no] stakes [by] say[ing] thus far will we go and no farther . . . no, view him fulfilling all righteousness . . . on the banks of jordan, also on the Mount transfigured before Peter and John there receiving the fulness of priesthood or the law of God, setting up no stake but coming right up to the mark in all things.(250) Regarding Abraham, Joseph said, Abraham's was a more exalted power or preisthood [than the Levitical order of temple blessings for there was "no sealing power attending this [Levitical] preisthood," moreover,] he [Abraham] could talk and walk with God and yet consider how great this man [Melchizedek] was when even this patriarch Abraham gave a tenth part of all his spoils and then received a blessing under the hands of Melchizedek even the last law or a fulness of the law or preisthood which constituted [Abraham] a king and priest after the order of Melchizedek or an endless life.(251) The conferral of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood came not by being "a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King and Priest to God to [have the power to] open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace and Law of endless Life to man and no man can attain to the joint heirship with Jesus Christ without being administered to by one having the same power and authority of Melchisedec."(252) 

[Calm]

In this thesis by Andrew F. Ehat, he explains the 2nd anointing and the history of if quite thoroughly.  It is fascinating to read.

 

If you have not read his thesis (written in 1982), it is excellent so far, (I'm still reading it).  Ehat was given access to the church archives to write it and there are quotes and information in here that I have not seen before.

 

The title of this thesis is:

Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question

 

Edited to add:

I'll try to find a link to an online copy of the thesis, if you're interested in reading it.

Looks like it may be in scribd:

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/35205295/Joseph-Smith-s-Introduction-of-Temple-Ordinances-and-the-1844-Mormon-Succession-Question-by-Andrew-Ehat

[ALarson]

Thanks calmoriah.  I meant to post this link earlier (here is another place to get it online in pdf):

 

https://onewhoiswatching.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ehat-succession.pdf

[JulieM]

Alarson, thank you for answering my questions. This is all so interesting to me! I do think I'll try to start reading the paper too.

How much does it discuss the succession?

And, another question. When was the second anointing first called that if Joseph didn't? Or did he start referring to it later as the 2nd anointing?

[theplains]

My opinion is that is is one of two possibilities:

 

or ... 

2. They were operating under the teaching that Brigham gave that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation. 

 

Is that a false doctrine?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Is that a false doctrine?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

That wasn't the issue.

The issue at hand was "did Joseph and Brigham believe it to be true?"  History would seem to indicate they did at the time in question.

[theplains]

That wasn't the issue.

The issue at hand was "did Joseph and Brigham believe it to be true?"  History would seem to indicate they did at the time in question.

 

People of various faiths believe many things. But the important thing to consider is whether

their doctrines are true or false.  What Joseph or Brigham believed to be true is irrelevant if

that particular belief is really false.  That is why people's eternal destiny is predicated on 

Him who is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

Regards,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

People of various faiths believe many things. But the important thing to consider is whether

their doctrines are true or false.  What Joseph or Brigham believed to be true is irrelevant if

that particular belief is really false.  That is why people's eternal destiny is predicated on 

Him who is the way, the truth, and the life.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

What makes you think the Bible is true?

[Jeanne]

This is brings up an interesting topic.

Joseph recorded that he said in a meeting that he wanted Hyrum to be President of the Church (as he was the Patriarch and held the birthright) and that he (Joseph) was going to go on to be King and Priest.

 

Of course the members reacted badly and didn't want that to happen.  Joseph said something like "have you not understood the priesthood".

So is President of the Church a lower office than King & Priest or the one man with sealing powers?  I realize they are the same person, but are the offices different?

This is something I have never understood.  By what reason did BY become the prophet?  Was he feared?  Or was he truly admired?  His personality id not ever change its course..rough and often unapologetic.  For al his wisdome in creating a city...I wonder if the people of the church actually sustained him.  I know the story of the face of JS upon BY in reference to a talk but in so many ways it seems the JS and BY were so opposite in discerning ways of deliverance to the gospel.  I have studied this and I believe that Emma may haveleft with the saints had their been what JS truly wanted in following footsteps of the Priesthood/Prophet delegation,  That being said, would the Lord hve someone that was not really destined to be  a prophet hold the office?  For all BY's intelligence, he lost a lot of membership and the only respect I believe he got was what was demanded of him.

[Tacenda]

This is something I have never understood. By what reason did BY become the prophet? Was he feared? Or was he truly admired? His personality has not ever change its course..rough and often unapologetic. For al his wisdome in creating a city...I wonder if the people of the church actually sustained him. I know the story of the face of JS upon BY in reference to a talk but in so many ways it seems the JS and BY were so opposite in discerning ways of deliverance to the gospel. I have studied this and I believe that Emma may haveleft with the saints had their been what JS truly wanted in following footsteps of the Priesthood/Prophet delegation, That being said, would the Lord hve someone that was not really destined to be a prophet hold the office? For all BY's intelligence, he lost a lot of membership and the only respect I believe he got was what was demanded of him.

I read not too long ago that story of JS's face and voice coming through onto BY's, is not substantiated and goes under the "faith promoting stories" category.

[ALarson]

I read not too long ago that story of JS's face and voice coming through onto BY's, is not substantiated and goes under the "faith promoting stories" category.

I've read this too, Tacenda.  But, I have to admit that I haven't really done much studying on that topic.  

 

I do remember that Brigham Young didn't seem comfortable being called the "Prophet".  I also remember in one of Quinn's books he writes that the term Prophet was mainly associated with Joseph Smith and after he died, members still thought of him or referred to him as "The Prophet". 

 

Quinn writes that It wasn't until David O. McKay that the president of the church was commonly called Prophet again.  I'd have to look it up again for clarity and to see his sources, as I'm just going from memory here.

Edited May 2, 2015 by ALarson

[mikegriffith1]

 

Over on the thread, "Why I Argue That Throwing Out 132 Has Precident", Nevo posted something that I wanted to ask about.  I thought I'd start a new thread rather than derail that one.

 

Here's what Nevo posted:  

 

 

 

 

Nevo, I'm reading Andrew F. Ehat's thesis (I asked you about it awhile ago on here), and it mentions this too.

 

Ehat seems to connect Hyrum's request for the revelation with the problems Hyrum encountered when he "acted on the sealing principle" and then was rebuked by Joseph for sealing "without counsel" (the sealing that Joseph had to annul).

 

What are your thoughts on this (or anyone else on here)?

 

 

It does not bother me at all that Hyrum requested that the revelation on plural marriage be written. I don't see how that affects the revelation's validity. I suppose if someone has a fundamentalist evangelical view of how scripture is produced, something like that might matter to them, might make them question the revelation's authenticity. But using that criterion, we would have to question other books/epistles because they were written at the request of others.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It does not bother me at all that Hyrum requested that the revelation on plural marriage be written. I don't see how that affects the revelation's validity. I suppose if someone has a fundamentalist evangelical view of how scripture is produced, something like that might matter to them, might make them question the revelation's authenticity. But using that criterion, we would have to question other books/epistles because they were written at the request of others.

 

It's a good thing Hyrum's name wasn't Kate Kelly.

[theplains]

What makes you think the Bible is true?

 

A few reasons.  Archaeological/historical/geographical evidence and fulfilled prophecy. But

mostly, the church would not be possible without the resurrection of Christ.

 

Regards,

Jim