Favorite Folklore

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

That may be true, but unless Joseph and Oliver were lying, John the Baptist told them BEFORE " that he was acting under the direction of Peter, James, and John, the ancient Apostles, who held the keys of the higher priesthood, which was called the Priesthood of Melchizedek. The promise was given to Joseph and Oliver that in due time this higher priesthood would be conferred upon them".

 

I don't want to derail your thread either, but technically, Oliver quotes John the Baptist as saying NOTHING about any future ordination by Peter, James and John or anybody else.

 

“But, dear brother, think, further think for a moment, what joy filled our hearts, and with what surprise we must have bowed, (for who would not have bowed the knee for such a blessing?) when we received under his hand the Holy Priesthood as he said, ‘Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this Priesthood and this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!’

 Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1 (October 1834), pp. 14–16.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng

I also have difficulty locating any statement whatsoever from Oliver corroborating Joseph's account of Peter, James and John (or anybody else) doing a subsequent visitation and ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Do you know of any?

As I say, it would be naïve to acknowledge the existence of folklore but to believe none of it insinuated itself into the scriptures.

I mean, there is that whole global flood thing. 

 

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I also have difficulty locating any statement whatsoever from Oliver corroborating Joseph's account of Peter, James and John (or anybody else) doing a subsequent visitation and ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Do you know of any?

Oliver Cowdery said the following:

“John the Baptist, holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James, and John, holding the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, have ministered for those who shall be heirs of salvation, and with these administrations ordained men to the same Priesthood. These Priesthoods, with their authority, are now, and must continue to be, in the body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessed is the elder who has received the same, and thrice blessed and holy is he who shall endure to the end. Accept assurances, dear brother, of the unfeigned prayer of him, who, in connection with Joseph the Seer, was blessed with the above ministrations, and who earnestly and devoutly hopes to meet you in the celestial glory.” (Oliver Cowdery to Samuel W. Richards, January 13, 1849, in Deseret Evening News, March 22, 1884, 2.)

When Joseph and Oliver ordained new Apostles in 1835. Oliver told them, “You have been ordained to the Holy Priesthood. You have received it from those who had their power and authority from an angel.” (Kirtland Council Minute Book, February 21, 1835, 159, Church History Library.)

These seem to corroborate the account of it happening; unless Oliver was lying about it.

Edited May 27, 2016 by JAHS

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Oliver Cowdery said the following:

“John the Baptist, holding the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood; Peter, James, and John, holding the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, have ministered for those who shall be heirs of salvation, and with these administrations ordained men to the same Priesthood. These Priesthoods, with their authority, are now, and must continue to be, in the body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Blessed is the elder who has received the same, and thrice blessed and holy is he who shall endure to the end. Accept assurances, dear brother, of the unfeigned prayer of him, who, in connection with Joseph the Seer, was blessed with the above ministrations, and who earnestly and devoutly hopes to meet you in the celestial glory.” (Oliver Cowdery to Samuel W. Richards, January 13, 1849, in Deseret Evening News, March 22, 1884, 2.)

When Joseph and Oliver ordained new Apostles in 1835. Oliver told them, “You have been ordained to the Holy Priesthood. You have received it from those who had their power and authority from an angel.” (Kirtland Council Minute Book, February 21, 1835, 159, Church History Library.)

These seem to corroborate the account of it happening; unless Oliver was lying about it.

I am  no expert on this, JAHS, but it is an area of interest to me.

I did notice that in Oliver's PGP account, he refers to what he and Joseph got from John the Baptist as "the Priesthood," which most of us now would think refers to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Strangely, this account is from 1834.  Why would Oliver be referring to the Aaronic Priesthood simply as "the Priesthood" in 1834?  (It is likely because the story about Peter, James and John appearing was just on the cusp of being developed.  You recall that David Whitmer himself said he never heard anything about Peter, James and John appearing until around this time?)

Then, we have an account from 1835 which you quote, when Oliver tells the new apostles that they have been "ordained to the Holy Priesthood," but Oliver says it was received from an "angel," not angels in the plural, making it sound more like Oliver is talking about the priesthood from John the Baptist.

Why in 1835 does Oliver Cowdery not mention Peter, James and John, or at the very least say angels in the plural?  It sounds like he knows nothing of angels in the plural restoring priesthood to him.  This is odd when the official narrative has become that he and Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James and John in or around June of 1829.

And then, the first quote you give in which Oliver Cowdery ostensibly talks about Peter, James and John for what appears to be the first time in 1849, but I have to question why it is this is being published for what appears to be the first time in 1884.

This smells like somebody backing and filling an obvious hole in Oliver Cowdery's story.

Don't you think?

Sounding more and more like folklore to me.

[Jeanne]

31 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I am  no expert on this, JAHS, but it is an area of interest to me.

I did notice that in Oliver's PGP account, he refers to what he and Joseph got from John the Baptist as "the Priesthood," which most of us now would think refers to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Strangely, this account is from 1834.  Why would Oliver be referring to the Aaronic Priesthood simply as "the Priesthood" in 1834?  (It is likely because the story about Peter, James and John appearing was just on the cusp of being developed.  You recall that David Whitmer himself said he never heard anything about Peter, James and John appearing until around this time?)

Then, we have an account from 1835 which you quote, when Oliver tells the new apostles that they have been "ordained to the Holy Priesthood," but Oliver says it was received from an "angel," not angels in the plural, making it sound more like Oliver is talking about the priesthood from John the Baptist.

Why in 1835 does Oliver Cowdery not mention Peter, James and John, or at the very least say angels in the plural?  It sounds like he knows nothing of angels in the plural restoring priesthood to him.  This is odd when the official narrative has become that he and Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James and John in or around June of 1829.

And then, the first quote you give in which Oliver Cowdery ostensibly talks about Peter, James and John for what appears to be the first time in 1849, but I have to question why it is this is being published for what appears to be the first time in 1884.

This smells like somebody backing and filling an obvious hole in Oliver Cowdery's story.

Don't you think?

Sounding more and more like folklore to me.

Wow..this was informative.  Why is it that so many things weren't recorded until so many years later??  This goe for just about all the visions, angels and visitaions whether for priesthood or the first vision stories.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Jeanne

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Then, we have an account from 1835 which you quote, when Oliver tells the new apostles that they have been "ordained to the Holy Priesthood," but Oliver says it was received from an "angel," not angels in the plural, making it sound more like Oliver is talking about the priesthood from John the Baptist.

Well I would assume it was Peter (the angel) who actually conferred the priesthood on them with the others just standing in as witnesses like is done today. 
There really just isn't must documentation about how and when it was done; but of course that's where faith comes into play, that what subsequent prophets tell us about it is true.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

Well I would assume it was Peter (the angel) who actually conferred the priesthood on them with the others just standing in as witnesses like is done today. 
There really just isn't must documentation about how and when it was done; but of course that's where faith comes into play, that what subsequent prophets tell us about it is true.

This response reminds me of what apologists say about Joseph Smith's earliest (1832) First Vision account, where he does not describe seeing two personages, but instead says that the Lord opened the heavens and he saw the Lord.

That sounds a lot like Joseph Smith saw only one being.  But the apologetic is that just because Joseph mentioned seeing only one being does not mean there was not another being that he saw.

Now, if I understand you right, you are saying that Oliver mentioning only one angel in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not mean there were not two other angels present.

At some point this particular apologetic begins to lose its charm. 

 

 

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This response reminds me of what apologists say about Joseph Smith's earliest (1832) First Vision account, where he does not describe seeing two personages, but instead says that the Lord opened the heavens and he saw the Lord.

That sounds a lot like Joseph Smith saw only one being.  But the apologetic is that just because Joseph mentioned seeing only one being does not mean there was not another being that he saw.

Now, if I understand you right, you are saying that Oliver mentioning only one angel in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not mean there were not two other angels present.

At some point this particular apologetic begins to lose its charm. 

 

 

The story just gets bigger and bigger.  Just like the LDS scriptures, which I heard yesterday on a podcast, that there have been at least a million changes.  That seemed just a little out there to me.  But the podcaster was dead serious.  

[JAHS]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Now, if I understand you right, you are saying that Oliver mentioning only one angel in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood does not mean there were not two other angels present.

Right. There might have also even been a few birds, rabbits, and fish swimming by in the Susquehanna. 

The first quote I mentioned does suggest all three were involved.
But when the priesthood was conferred on me, my father did it; not the others in the circle.

 

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The story just gets bigger and bigger.  Just like the LDS scriptures, which I heard yesterday on a podcast, that there have been at least a million changes.  That seemed just a little out there to me.  But the podcaster was dead serious.  

A million sounds like hyperbole, to me.  There have been over 3,000 changes in the Book of Mormon, but only a handful of those are substantive changes.

When it comes to the Doctrine and Covenants, there are also lots of changes, but only a relative few are substantive.

I feel like the late addition of Peter, James and John to the narrative are among these substantive changes.  And it is possible that John the Baptist falls into this category, as well.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the original revelation printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments with the same revelation substantially revised and expanded for publication in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

 

A Book of Commandments - Chapter 28

---

Book of Commandments Chapter XXVIII	Doctrine and Covenants Section 27
A Commandment to the church of Christ, given in Harmony, Pennsylvania, September 4, 1830,	Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, August 1830. HC 1:106-108. In preparation for a religious service at which the sacrament of bread and wine was to be administered, Joseph set out to procure wine for the occasion. He was met by a heavenly messenger and received this revelation, a portion of which was written at the time, and the remainder in the September following. Water is now used instead of wine in the sacramental services of the Church.
28:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.	27:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.
28:2 For behold I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory; 28:3 Remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins:	27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory--remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.
28:4 Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine, neither strong drink of your enemies:	27:3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;
28:5 Wherefore you shall partake of none, except it is made new among you, yea, in this my Father's kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.	27:4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father's kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.
28:6 Behold this is wisdom in me, wherefore marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you, on the earth, and with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world:	27:5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim; 27:6 And also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days; 27:7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias; 27:8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron; 27:9 And also Elijah, unto whom I have committed the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse; 27:10 And also with Joseph and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, your fathers, by whom the promises remain; 27:11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; 27:12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them; 27:13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; 27:14 And also with all those whom my Father hath given me out of the world.
28:7 Wherefore lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins and be faithful until I come:--even so. Amen.	27:15 Wherefore, lift up your hearts and rejoice, and gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to stand. 27:16 Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you; 27:17 Taking the shield of faith wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked; 27:18 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of my Spirit, which I will pour out upon you, and my word which I reveal unto you, and be agreed as touching all things whatsoever ye ask of me, and be faithful until I come, and ye shall be caught up, that where I am ye shall be also. Amen.

 

Something obviously occurred between 1833 and 1835.  If there had been earlier instances of mentioning Peter, James and John appearing and conferring Priesthood authority, this would not be such a big deal.  The problem is there appear to be no such instances.

In fact, we have David Whitmer going on record that he never heard about it before 1834, and as one of the three witnesses and intimately involved in the early years of Mormonism, he would be in a position to have heard about it, and he even says this about John the Baptist.

Quote

I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5. or [183]6—in Ohio.… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver… (Whitmer, quoted in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel, 5:137).

Whitmer is seconded in this by William McLellin:

Quote

I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so …[A]s to the story of John, the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized; I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said (McLellin, quoted in Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, pp.224-25).

The first instance of Oliver Cowdery mentioning being ordained to "the Priesthood" by "an angel" was in 1834, as cited in the PGP account.  This tends to lend support to Whitmer and McLellin.

The question is why this should be so.

In short, given the fact that priesthood authority is the primary basis upon which Mormonism stands, why should the restoration of that authority by John the Baptist on May 15, 1829, and a few weeks later by Peter James and John, go completely unmentioned for five years?

It would seem that the significance of priesthood authority was not of such primary importance in Mormonism until several years after its organization.  Else it would have been mentioned earlier.

Once priesthood authority became significant, stories were constructed in order to prove that authority had been bestowed prior to the church's organization.

Hence, John the Baptist, as well as Peter, James and John, are not mentioned until 1834 at the earliest, and then projected back in time to 1829.

It seems that this may be a classic instance of Mormon folklore.

[consiglieri]

17 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Wow..this was informative.  Why is it that so many things weren't recorded until so many years later??  This goe for just about all the visions, angels and visitaions whether for priesthood or the first vision stories.

Like Tony Stark said of Nick Fury, "Even his secrets have secrets."

[juliann]

Ah, the 3 Nephites.....   I think it would be hard for younger people to imagine it how prolific those stories were in the 70s/80s. It is just as interesting how such things disappear without a trace as it is in how they originate. I'm also glad to see less of the White Horse Prophecy. I still hear occasional mentions of literal blood line stuff, as in the Lost Tribes or Patriarchal Blessing lineages. We have a talkative ward member who bought into Visions of Glory hook line and sinker.

The folklore I react to the most is the last days stuff and that is probably the most prolific. It troubles me that we still have so many members so willing to tell youth they only have death and horror to look forward to, even those who were told they were the special generation that would usher in the prophecies. Even Elder Packer assured youth they could look forward to fulfilling lives with grandchildren but it doesn't seem to register with far too many. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5. or [183]6—in Ohio.… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver… (Whitmer, quoted in Early Mormon Documents, ed. Dan Vogel, 5:137).

Both of them said they didn't hear of it happening and didn't believe it happened; either stating their opinion or their ignorance about the events. 
 Part of the quote above includes the following:
"in the year 1829, on our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Josephs presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command-And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829. Joseph ordained Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ. <and during that year Joseph both baptized and ordained me an elder in the church of Christ.> Also, during this year the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, And we preached, baptized and ordained some as Elders, And upon the Sixth day of April 1830, six Elders together with some fifty or sixty (as near as I recollect) of the members met together to effect an organization. I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 - in Ohio"

He agrees that Joseph and Oliver were ordaining people to be elders in the church, so they had to have gotten some priesthood authority in some way.

 

[consiglieri]

48 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Both of them said they didn't hear of it happening and didn't believe it happened; either stating their opinion or their ignorance about the events. 
 Part of the quote above includes the following:
"in the year 1829, on our way I conversed freely with them upon this great work they were bringing about, and Oliver stated to me in Josephs presence that they had baptized each other seeking by that to fulfill the command-And after our arrival at fathers sometime in June 1829. Joseph ordained Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder, and Oliver ordained Joseph to be an Elder in the Church of Christ. <and during that year Joseph both baptized and ordained me an elder in the church of Christ.> Also, during this year the translation of the Book of Mormon was finished, And we preached, baptized and ordained some as Elders, And upon the Sixth day of April 1830, six Elders together with some fifty or sixty (as near as I recollect) of the members met together to effect an organization. I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 - in Ohio"

He agrees that Joseph and Oliver were ordaining people to be elders in the church, so they had to have gotten some priesthood authority in some way.

 

"In some way" does not constitute getting the Melchizedek Priesthood by the laying on of hands by Peter, James and John.

Do you have any explanation as to how somebody as closely associated with Mormonism from its inception as David Whitmer could not have heard about Peter, James and John restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood in June of 1829?

[JAHS]

47 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

"In some way" does not constitute getting the Melchizedek Priesthood by the laying on of hands by Peter, James and John.

Do you have any explanation as to how somebody as closely associated with Mormonism from its inception as David Whitmer could not have heard about Peter, James and John restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood in June of 1829?

At the time Whitmer gave that interview in 1885 he had long since been separated (and excommunicated) from the church (1838) because of arguments he had with Joseph Smith about the  priesthood and other things, so I consider him a hostile witness at best. 

[Coreyb]

I love Mormon folklore. My favorite are J Golden Kimball stories and old stories from the early days in the Great Basin. Porter Rockwell stories, Jacob Hamblin stories and stories about cohabs evading Federal Marshals are still circulating among certain Mormons all these years later

[bcuzbcuz]

On 25 May 2016 at 11:09 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I heard the story while on my mission in Sweden about the missionary companions who faked their weekly reports so they could go on vacation for two weeks and were busted after their landlady sent the reports out of sequence to the mission office. Supposedly it happened in my mission.

It was several years later that I learned the story was folklore and there were reports of the same thing happening in widely disparate locales.

I heard that one too, many years before you came to Sweden.

When a companion and I were working in Helsingborg the DL and ZL came in an unannounced visit to our town. They had heard from unknown sources that my companion and I were travelling by ferry to Helsingör in Denmark. (Why anyone would do such a thing is entirely beyond my understanding). We had been canvassing the farms outside of town. We met people who had never been visited by missionaries, ever, and we spent the day talking with very pleasant people, who invited us in to their homes and stuffed us with saft and bullar. We got back to our residence around nine that evening, totally exhausted but invigorated from a day well spent. The DL and ZL were fuming with anger, convinced that they had caught us violating a mission policy. After a very heated discussion and finally a long phone conversation with the mission president we were left in peace. Whether they believed us or not I'll never know.

I wrote a complete and detailed rendition of the events, including a description of the atmosphere of distrust that prevailed in the mission to my mother. She apparently called church authorities and then my mission president. A week later I was called as a DL.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I heard that one too, many years before you came to Sweden.

When a companion and I were working in Helsingborg the DL and ZL came in an unannounced visit to our town. They had heard from unknown sources that my companion and I were travelling by ferry to Helsingör in Denmark. (Why anyone would do such a thing is entirely beyond my understanding). We had been canvassing the farms outside of town. We met people who had never been visited by missionaries, ever, and we spent the day talking with very pleasant people, who invited us in to their homes and stuffed us with saft and bullar. We got back to our residence around nine that evening, totally exhausted but invigorated from a day well spent. The DL and ZL were fuming with anger, convinced that they had caught us violating a mission policy. After a very heated discussion and finally a long phone conversation with the mission president we were left in peace. Whether they believed us or not I'll never know.

I wrote a complete and detailed rendition of the events, including a description of the atmosphere of distrust that prevailed in the mission to my mother. She apparently called church authorities and then my mission president. A week later I was called as a DL.

Was Fletcher still the mission president then?

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I heard that one too, many years before you came to Sweden.

When a companion and I were working in Helsingborg the DL and ZL came in an unannounced visit to our town. They had heard from unknown sources that my companion and I were travelling by ferry to Helsingör in Denmark. (Why anyone would do such a thing is entirely beyond my understanding). We had been canvassing the farms outside of town. We met people who had never been visited by missionaries, ever, and we spent the day talking with very pleasant people, who invited us in to their homes and stuffed us with saft and bullar. We got back to our residence around nine that evening, totally exhausted but invigorated from a day well spent. The DL and ZL were fuming with anger, convinced that they had caught us violating a mission policy. After a very heated discussion and finally a long phone conversation with the mission president we were left in peace. Whether they believed us or not I'll never know.

I wrote a complete and detailed rendition of the events, including a description of the atmosphere of distrust that prevailed in the mission to my mother. She apparently called church authorities and then my mission president. A week later I was called as a DL.

These things happen. I was in England and a pair of missionaries took the ferry to North Ireland just to see it. Then came back. They were found out later (I think one confessed). One became an AP.

[boblloyd91]

Speaking of mission folklore, I wonder if it happens out of a combination of actual events, embellishment, boredom, youthful exuberance, and a bit of "telephone". I think that what happens in Mormon folklore is the same as what happens with any folklore, which is a mixture of truth and fiction.

[bcuzbcuz]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Was Fletcher still the mission president then?

Yes, he was. He wanted all missionaries to distribute/place/sell the translated Book of Mormon "Mormons bok" telling us that every book placed would result in a convertion, sooner or later. To date that prophecy is running a bit late.

[rodheadlee]

On 5/27/2016 at 4:17 PM, consiglieri said:

I am  no expert on this, JAHS, but it is an area of interest to me.

I did notice that in Oliver's PGP account, he refers to what he and Joseph got from John the Baptist as "the Priesthood," which most of us now would think refers to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Strangely, this account is from 1834.  Why would Oliver be referring to the Aaronic Priesthood simply as "the Priesthood" in 1834?  (It is likely because the story about Peter, James and John appearing was just on the cusp of being developed.  You recall that David Whitmer himself said he never heard anything about Peter, James and John appearing until around this time?)

Then, we have an account from 1835 which you quote, when Oliver tells the new apostles that they have been "ordained to the Holy Priesthood," but Oliver says it was received from an "angel," not angels in the plural, making it sound more like Oliver is talking about the priesthood from John the Baptist.

Why in 1835 does Oliver Cowdery not mention Peter, James and John, or at the very least say angels in the plural?  It sounds like he knows nothing of angels in the plural restoring priesthood to him.  This is odd when the official narrative has become that he and Joseph received the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James and John in or around June of 1829.

And then, the first quote you give in which Oliver Cowdery ostensibly talks about Peter, James and John for what appears to be the first time in 1849, but I have to question why it is this is being published for what appears to be the first time in 1884.

This smells like somebody backing and filling an obvious hole in Oliver Cowdery's story.

Don't you think?

Sounding more and more like folklore to me.

I think they were too busy doing things like starting the church, getting funding to print BoMs, preaching the gospel, getting the Word out about the Church , running for their lives, maintaining food and water supplies, etc to realize how important their journals would be 180 years in the future. How every little detail would be scrutinized.

[PeterPear]

On May 28, 2016 at 0:59 PM, JAHS said:

At the time Whitmer gave that interview in 1885 he had long since been separated (and excommunicated) from the church (1838) because of arguments he had with Joseph Smith about the  priesthood and other things, so I consider him a hostile witness at best. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/12/the-restoration-of-the-aaronic-and-melchizedek-priesthoods?lang=eng

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I think they were too busy doing things like starting the church, getting funding to print BoMs, preaching the gospel, getting the Word out about the Church , running for their lives, maintaining food and water supplies, etc to realize how important their journals would be 180 years in the future. How every little detail would be scrutinized.

Joseph Smith did not seem to like the commands that a record must be kept. He often dictated his journal to a scribe and did not record everything. He preferred telling others to recording things. I am not surprised there is little to no record of such an event. I am actually surprised there are not more.

[Thinking]

While on my mission from 1982-1984, there was a popular belief that Spencer W. Kimball would live to see the second coming of Jesus because he was the 12th prophet (12 being such a significant number).

[Thinking]

Every missionary knew somebody who was present when a group of missionaries were performing proxy sealings and the officiator married the sister and the elder to each other instead of for the dead. I think it happens every week at least twice.