Did Joseph Smith have the Priesthood through Birthright?

[Benjamin Seeker]

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that JS had the priesthood through birthright. 

Quote

8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--

9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God--

10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.

I'm guessing this is somehow connected to the 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel). At the least, the theme of restoration forms a connective tissue:

Quote

2 Ne 3:13 And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.

Does anyone know of further primary or secondary sources or other of JS' revelations/translations that shed further light either way on this issue? 

[emeliza]

I always assumed he was foreordained and that almost every male has the priesthood lineage thru birthright. 

[RevTestament]

3 What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse?

 4 Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power.

[snowflake]

Unless Joseph Smith Jr was from the line of Aaron (a Levite) he would not have a legitimate claim to the Aaronic Priesthood according to Exodus.

[Benjamin Seeker]

56 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Unless Joseph Smith Jr was from the line of Aaron (a Levite) he would not have a legitimate claim to the Aaronic Priesthood according to Exodus.

That's the typical priesthood lineage we think of. However, another concrete example is that the Smith family claimed the patriarchal office by lineage (Joseph Sr., Hyrum, etc.). It hadn't occurred to me until now, but that claim may be related to the verses in D&C 86 I gave above.

Another evidence of family-based authority, that also may be related to section 86 is Joseph Jr.'s blessing to his son (or something along these lines), saying that leading the church would continue in his lineage. Brigham Young acknowledged that when he was leading the church saying that if Joseph's posterity were to join the saints, God would call them into leadership.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that JS had the priesthood through birthright. 

I'm guessing this is somehow connected to the 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel). At the least, the theme of restoration forms a connective tissue:

Does anyone know of further primary or secondary sources or other of JS' revelations/translations that shed further light either way on this issue? 

Just found your new thread, thanks for starting this.  

I find this an interesting question because of the timing.  Firstly with D&C 86, apparently this revelation first received in 1832, this is somewhat before the earliest accounts of John the Baptist and the Aaronic priesthood restoration.  Also the BoM account would have been earlier too.  I'm wondering if this is evidence that the early idea of priesthood was a concept that authority came through lineage primarily, and not through an angelic restoration.  

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Just found your new thread, thanks for starting this.  

I find this an interesting question because of the timing.  Firstly with D&C 86, apparently this revelation first received in 1832, this is somewhat before the earliest accounts of John the Baptist and the Aaronic priesthood restoration.  Also the BoM account would have been earlier too.  I'm wondering if this is evidence that the early idea of priesthood was a concept that authority came through lineage primarily, and not through an angelic restoration.  

 

I thought the John the Baptist account was relatively early, but I've never examined the dates closely. Would you mind sharing a quick timeline of the earliest accounts?

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I thought the John the Baptist account was relatively early, but I've never examined the dates closely. Would you mind sharing a quick timeline of the earliest accounts?

Sure thing:

• September 1834 letter from Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps is the first explicit reference to an Angel restoring the Aaronic Priesthood, although it doesn't name him as John the Baptist yet.  
• 1835 D&C is the first place that I'm aware of that names the Angel as John the Baptist.  

This summary by Michael Marquart is a good reference: http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/respri4.htm

A good book on the subject is Greg Prince's "Power from on High", it goes through all the early Priesthood development.  Your question about D&C 86 and the timeline of events really makes me wonder if perhaps Joseph was going in a different direction at first.  A direction where he perceived he already had the authority, but then later he switched gears and created the angelic narrative to bolster the claim for authority.  Its at least an interesting speculation.  

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, emeliza said:

I always assumed he was foreordained and that almost every male has the priesthood lineage thru birthright. 

This was my understanding also. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This was my understanding also. 

Foreordination and priesthood via lineage (for example Levites or the office of Patriarch of the Church) are two very different animals.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sure thing:

• September 1834 letter from Oliver Cowdery to W.W. Phelps is the first explicit reference to an Angel restoring the Aaronic Priesthood, although it doesn't name him as John the Baptist yet.  
• 1835 D&C is the first place that I'm aware of that names the Angel as John the Baptist.  

This summary by Michael Marquart is a good reference: http://user.xmission.com/~research/central/respri4.htm

A good book on the subject is Greg Prince's "Power from on High", it goes through all the early Priesthood development.  Your question about D&C 86 and the timeline of events really makes me wonder if perhaps Joseph was going in a different direction at first.  A direction where he perceived he already had the authority, but then later he switched gears and created the angelic narrative to bolster the claim for authority.  Its at least an interesting speculation.  

I just looked and the 1832 History's introduction already includes restoration of priesthood by angels (yes, plural, no names). Considering that's the earliest known attempt at a history it's decent evidence for angel-priesthood-restoration doctrine since inception. 

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I just looked and the 1832 History's introduction already includes restoration of priesthood by angels (yes, plural, no names). Considering that's the earliest known attempt at a history it's decent evidence for angel-priesthood-restoration doctrine since inception. 

You're right, it does refer to Angels, I must have missed that earlier.  I'm still pretty sure the first John the Baptist reference is in 1835.  That quote from the 1832 history is interesting in that it mentions a "reception of the Holy Priesthood by the ministering of Angels".  I still find it somewhat vague as to how this was "received", it doesn't talk about laying on of hands or a particular passing of priesthood authority through a ritual of some kind.  The word reception could be more akin to Angels conferring knowledge through teaching, rather than granting authority through a ritual.   

At any rate, this idea that Angels were a part of the early church experience I'm not disputing.  I do think there was much talk of angels and heaven working with the early church leaders, Moroni being the key example, but there are others as well.  I do think that this idea of Joseph and Oliver receiving priesthood authority from an Angel specifically to be an idea that didn't form until later on.  Perhaps it was beginning to develop in 1832, although I'm not sure the language of the 1832 history is clear enough to prove that.  

 

Edited December 14, 2016 by hope_for_things

[JAHS]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're right, it does refer to Angels, I must have missed that earlier.  I'm still pretty sure the first John the Baptist reference is in 1835.  That quote from the 1832 history is interesting in that it mentions a "reception of the Holy Priesthood by the ministering of Angels".  I still find it somewhat vague as to how this was "received", it doesn't talk about laying on of hands or a particular passing of priesthood authority through a ritual of some kind.  The word reception could be more akin to Angels conferring knowledge through teaching, rather than granting authority through a ritual.   

At any rate, this idea that Angels were a part of the early church experience I'm not disputing.  I do think there was much talk of angels and heaven working with the early church leaders, Moroni being the key example, but there are others as well.  I do think that this idea of Joseph and Oliver receiving priesthood authority from an Angel specifically to be an idea that didn't form until later on.  Perhaps it was beginning to develop in 1832, although I'm not sure the language of the 1832 history is clear enough to prove that.  

 

Interesting that Joseph states there were several angels (not just Moroni) involved in the restoration of the gospel even before he received the plates.

"The angel(Moroni) appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel(Moroni) of the Lord delivered the records into my hands." (HC 4:537)

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Interesting that Joseph states there were several angels (not just Moroni) involved in the restoration of the gospel even before he received the plates.

"The angel(Moroni) appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22nd of September, A.D. 1827, the angel(Moroni) of the Lord delivered the records into my hands." (HC 4:537)

Thats interesting as well, why not just refer to Moroni again as a singular angel, why say visits from angels?  The 1835 first vision account also describes many angels and I believe it was referred to as the visitation of angels.  Lots of accounts of angelic visits.    

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that JS had the priesthood through birthright. 

I'm guessing this is somehow connected to the 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel). At the least, the theme of restoration forms a connective tissue:

Does anyone know of further primary or secondary sources or other of JS' revelations/translations that shed further light either way on this issue? 

I believe it is consistent with Abraham’s blessing wherein the “right” of the Priesthood should continue in his seed (Abraham 2 an elsewhere), which would include Joseph Smith’s forefathers as you pointed out. It also would have to to do with being called and prepared for this holy order from the foundation of the world (i.e. the “right”), later claimed and realized in the flesh through actual ordination (Alma 13).

[Abulafia]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I thought the John the Baptist account was relatively early, but I've never examined the dates closely. Would you mind sharing a quick timeline of the earliest accounts?

The only gospel that links John the Baptist with a priesthood lineage is Luke or L (ie unique to Luke).

 

The earlier accounts found in Mark, Q and Matthew do not have it.

 

I mean, anyone can make up anything and stamp it with divine revelation, but it isn't there in the earliest texts.  Indeed the evidence that we do have from the time period suggests that Jesus, John most of the male disciples and Paul, and certainly all gentile converts did not claim authority by virtue of the priesthood (see the thread I started on priesthood in early Christian history).

Edited December 15, 2016 by Abulafia

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

The only gospel that links John the Baptist with a priesthood lineage is Luke or L (ie unique to Luke).

 

The earlier accounts found in Mark, Q and Matthew do not have it.

 

I mean, anyone can make up anything and stamp it with divine revelation, but it isn't there in the earliest texts.  Indeed the evidence that we do have from the time period suggests that Jesus, John most of the male disciples and Paul, and certainly all gentile converts did not claim authority by virtue of the priesthood (see the thread I started on priesthood in early Christian history).

My question was only meant for an early Mormonism/mind-of-Joseph, theological/doctrinal interpretation. Thank you for the interesting info though.  I understand that early 19th century and early Mormon views on early Christianity, etc. are very different than what modern scholars have discovered was actual reality.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

The only gospel that links John the Baptist with a priesthood lineage is Luke or L (ie unique to Luke).

 

The earlier accounts found in Mark, Q and Matthew do not have it.

 

I mean, anyone can make up anything and stamp it with divine revelation, but it isn't there in the earliest texts.  Indeed the evidence that we do have from the time period suggests that Jesus, John most of the male disciples and Paul, and certainly all gentile converts did not claim authority by virtue of the priesthood (see the thread I started on priesthood in early Christian history).

I think this is because there is no such thing as “authority by virtue of the priesthood.”

The priesthood is the power of God. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood [i.e. His power] on earth.” In this modern explanation ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng ), such delegated authority comes by virtue of the priesthood keys, not of the priesthood. For example, Jesus “ordained [delegated] twelve... to have power [priesthood]” (Mark 3:14-15).

The mortal Jesus claimed, or rather acknowledged and taught, His authority (Mark 11:28-33). Whether He possessed it of Himself as the Son of God (Mark 2:10), or within Himself as observed by others (Mark 1:22), or by ordination or delegation, He clearly got it from the Father (Mark 11:28-33). His authority was by virtue of legitimate delegation, not of the possession of the power itself.

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think this is because there is no such thing as “authority by virtue of the priesthood.”

The priesthood is the power of God. “Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood [holders] to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood [i.e. His power] on earth.” In this modern explanation ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng ), such delegated authority comes by virtue of the priesthood keys, not of the priesthood. For example, Jesus “ordained [delegated] twelve... to have power [priesthood]” (Mark 3:14-15).

The mortal Jesus claimed, or rather acknowledged and taught, His authority (Mark 11:28-33). Whether He possessed it of Himself as the Son of God (Mark 2:10), or within Himself as observed by others (Mark 1:22), or by ordination or delegation, He clearly got it from the Father (Mark 11:28-33). His authority was by virtue of legitimate delegation, not of the possession of the power itself.

I believe there are basic "keys" inherent in each priesthood office. An Aaronic deacon does not have the same authority as a Melchizedec Elder by virtue of the office itself. There are no specific "keys" granted in being ordained as an Elder. All Elders have the same basic authority.

Yes, more specific keys can be granted, and often are. I believe this is what "Elias" is about. However, I see nothing which says an elder has to be granted some specific key to annoint and give healing blessings. The authority to do so is inherent in the office. Without such inherent authority I don't see much sense in the different priesthood offices.

As for Abulafia's claim that the early church did not recognize any priesthood, it seems to all be based on his/her position that any scripture discussing such authority is a later fraudulent edit of some type. Abulafia has never given any sound reason nor historical context on which to base such a position. Abulafia just says it, and seems to expect it to be accepted as so. I have already pointed out several scriptures on the subject, and a little historical context, which anyone can go read about in works such as those by Eusebius on the history of the Church. What has Abulafia provided? Nothing. Except his/her opinion.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

My question was only meant for an early Mormonism/mind-of-Joseph, theological/doctrinal interpretation. Thank you for the interesting info though.  I understand that early 19th century and early Mormon views on early Christianity, etc. are very different than what modern scholars have discovered was actual reality.

I am not challenging you - I am just interested.

Can u give any specifics about early LDS views on early Christianity. I am sure most of it is based upon Protestant teachings, but I have never studied this angle. Nevertheless, the Protestants were aware of the early "Church" writings. Based on the debate about Cain, etc, I am sure, however, that the Church was heavily Protestant-influenced.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I believe there are basic "keys" inherent in each priesthood office. An Aaronic deacon does not have the same authority as a Melchizedec Elder by virtue of the office itself. There are no specific "keys" granted in being ordained as an Elder. All Elders have the same basic authority.

Yes, more specific keys can be granted, and often are. I believe this is what "Elias" is about. However, I see nothing which says an elder has to be granted some specific key to annoint and give healing blessings. The authority to do so is inherent in the office. Without such inherent authority I don't see much sense in the different priesthood offices.

As for Abulafia's claim that the early church did not recognize any priesthood, it seems to all be based on his/her position that any scripture discussing such authority is a later fraudulent edit of some type. Abulafia has never given any sound reason nor historical context on which to base such a position. Abulafia just says it, and seems to expect it to be accepted as so. I have already pointed out several scriptures on the subject, and a little historical context, which anyone can go read about in works such as those by Eusebius on the history of the Church. What has Abulafia provided? Nothing. Except his/her opinion.

According to the talk in the link I gave, “Those who have priesthood keys … literally make it possible for all who serve faithfully under their direction to exercise priesthood authority and have access to priesthood power.”

Relatively few priesthood holders have priesthood keys delegated to them, and they direct the many others who have been given authority, by virtue of their office, to use God’s power. Sometimes the direction is very specific (baptize and confirm so-and-so) and sometimes general (you may give people blessings of comfort). “The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve …hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation…” Only the President of the Church has the right to exercise all these keys and delegates them to the presidents of any Church unit (temples, missions, stakes, districts, wards, branches, and quorums).

Where the book of Mark has been acknowledged to be one of the earliest Christian texts available, I see evidence that Christ used God's power (priesthood), spoke of Himself as possessing it, that He got it from the Father, and that He in turn ordained (authorized, delegated) the twelve to use it. As far as the offices go, I think these are a function of church organization and may change from time to time; I can't find evidence of Christian church priesthood office in the text of Mark but such offices are mentioned from Acts - onward. As far as women being ordained into these offices, I see no credible evidence of that in the New Testament either.

There is an interesting phrase in the talk I linked to: "Access to the power ...of the [power of God] is available to all of God’s children.” I think this means that the power (efficacy) of the power (capability) of God rests in faith.

Edited December 15, 2016 by CV75

[Abulafia]

On 15/12/2016 at 1:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

My question was only meant for an early Mormonism/mind-of-Joseph, theological/doctrinal interpretation. Thank you for the interesting info though.  I understand that early 19th century and early Mormon views on early Christianity, etc. are very different than what modern scholars have discovered was actual reality.

Apologies.  It's the essay I would love to see the church produce. So far they appear to have steered clear.  

[theplains]

On 13/12/2016 at 9:41 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that JS had the priesthood through birthright. 

I'm guessing this is somehow connected to the 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel). At the least, the theme of restoration forms a connective tissue:

Neither Manasseh nor Ephraim held the priesthood. It was the tribe of Levi.

Thanks,
Jim

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

Neither Manasseh nor Ephraim held the priesthood. It was the tribe of Levi.

Thanks,
Jim

Jim, that is one of the original pieces of information that makes this question an interesting one. In case you missed it, I already brought up the fact that JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to 2nd in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. Joseph also apparently envisioned the position of president of the church being lineal through his descendants. I think these two facts help give some context to D&C 86, which does seem to imply non-Levitic lineal priesthood in the Smith family. RevTeatament's contribution has given us the best hint so far. That verse, commonly believed to apply to JS, mentions descent through Ephraim and Jesse. Jesse is a Kingly descent, so perhaps that has some inference for priesthood?

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 12/15/2016 at 10:34 AM, RevTestament said:

I am not challenging you - I am just interested.

Can u give any specifics about early LDS views on early Christianity. I am sure most of it is based upon Protestant teachings, but I have never studied this angle. Nevertheless, the Protestants were aware of the early "Church" writings. Based on the debate about Cain, etc, I am sure, however, that the Church was heavily Protestant-influenced.

Rev, I don't know many specifics, just a couple general misconceptions. For example, they (we) believe that Christ set up a church when really, early followers of Christ, from what I understand, remained in the Jewish faith, going to synagogue etc. They probably additionally met outside of the synagogue to take the sacrament (or something along these lines). Separation from Jewish faith and forming an independent religion only happened gradually with increased rejection from Judaism. That makes the whole notion of returning to the primitive church a little more nuanced than we typically think of it.