Did Joseph Smith have the Priesthood through Birthright?

[Abulafia]

On 15/12/2016 at 2:52 PM, 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.

 

Okay.  This thread  is interesting because there appears to be three different claims in development.

Joseph got his authority by virtue of lineage.

Joseph got his authority by virtue of angelic bestowal of such. (John the Baptist and Peter, James and John)

Joseph got his authority through charisma.

All were in development with charisma coming first..and then lineage and lastly angelic visitation.  Is that a fair summarization?

 

I think that the most difficult part about talking to believing Mormons is that they are so used to seeing the subject through LDS theological eyes, that it can be impossible almost, to even persuade that there are other ways of looking at the authority and power of God that doesn't include  priesthood.  

Your references to  Mark do not say what you are suggesting. You are reading the text through an LDS theological worldview that just isn't there in the original.

I could detail why, but I covered it with evidence in the thread I started and don't wish to hijack this one.

 

 

[Abulafia]

On 15/12/2016 at 3:30 PM, RevTestament said:

 

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.

Rev.  I do believe you are being a little unfair here.  I backed up my claims with the best scholarship available and was careful to include references for anyone interested in pursuing the subject themselves. 

If you are interested in reading my full dissertation I can send you a copy or maybe put it up on academia.edu.

I am happy for it to be trashed, but based on fair reasoning and critique.

 

Edited December 17, 2016 by Abulafia

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Okay.  This thread  is interesting because there appears to be three different claims in development.

Joseph got his authority by virtue of lineage.

Joseph got his authority by virtue of angelic bestowal of such. (John the Baptist and Peter, James and John)

Joseph got his authority through charisma.

All were in development with charisma coming first..and then lineage and lastly angelic visitation.  Is that a fair summarization?

 

I think that the most difficult part about talking to believing Mormons is that they are so used to seeing the subject through LDS theological eyes, that it can be impossible almost, to even persuade that there are other ways of looking at the authority and power of God that doesn't include  priesthood.  

Your references to  Mark do not say what you are suggesting. You are reading the text through an LDS theological worldview that just isn't there in the original.

I could detail why, but I covered it with evidence in the thread I started and don't wish to hijack this one.

 

 

I will try to answer your question without drawing upon LDS thinking. I chose Mark because I thought it was generally accepted that it was an early (enough) text. I understand you are trained to go by the text without the filter of LDS theology (or other filters).

I did not intend to demonstrate from these verses that there is a strict, developmental phasing-in of how authority may be obtained; my read is that all three modes of transmission (lineage, angelic [or other intermediary] bestowal, or divine conferral or “charisma”*) could have been experienced by Jesus in any order, or concurrently. I’m thinking the same would hold true for anyone who receives the power of God (in this case, Joseph Smith). I think that authority does not come by virtue of the priesthood itself, but by virtue of obtaining it legitimately, through one or all of these three means.

What do you offer from your read of the specific text I mentioned (Mark 3:14-15; 11:28-33; 2:10; 1:22), that you consider inconsistent with LDS theology?

* Here I’ll interject an LDS perspective since there are many ways to look at that: Alma 13.

[CMZ]

17 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Okay. This thread is interesting because there appears to be three different claims in development:

• Joseph got his authority by virtue of lineage.
• Joseph got his authority by virtue of angelic bestowal of such. (John the Baptist and Peter, James and John)
• Joseph got his authority through charisma.

Not sure about the charisma thing. I'm not sure that Joseph Smith was especially charismatic. He seems to have been perceived by those around as fairly ordinary, but making extraordinary claims. As far as lineage goes it is not so much that he received authority because of lineage but that his lineage gave him the right to receive specific priesthood powers by virtue of angelic bestowal.

 

 

 

[CV75]

9 hours ago, CMZ said:

Not sure about the charisma thing. I'm not sure that Joseph Smith was especially charismatic. He seems to have been perceived by those around as fairly ordinary, but making extraordinary claims. As far as lineage goes it is not so much that he received authority because of lineage but that his lineage gave him the right to receive specific priesthood powers by virtue of angelic bestowal.

In this case, I think "charisma" in the Christian religious sense refers to a divinely conferred power or talent. I think the gifts of the Spirit are the best examples, but if one were to use it to describe aspects other than priesthood rights by virtue of lineage or priesthood conferral by virtue of ordination by angels or servants of God, I think Alma 13 describes how that might be. The foreordination of ordination to priesthood (in other words, the holy calling prepared from the foundation of the world, and thus without "father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life") is fulfilled in this life through the demonstration of exceeding faith and good works. Joseph Smith possessed these spiritual gifts from his childhood, and in this way had charisma, or divinely conferred power or talent. He came into the world foreordained, and also came into the world with the lineage (and thus had the right) and came into the holy order by angelic ordination (and thus had the legitimacy).

[Abulafia]

On 15/12/2016 at 3:30 PM, RevTestament said:

Duplicate

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

That's exactly what I meant by charisma.  

If you look at the writings of Paul he makes many attempts to justify his role, including foreordination, that do not include the Jerusalem apostles.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

"What do you offer from your read of the specific text I mentioned (Mark 3:14-15; 11:28-33; 2:10; 1:22), that you consider inconsistent with LDS theology?

* Here I’ll interject an LDS perspective since there are many ways to look at that: Alma 13."

For me, reading Alma 13, it appears to reflect a particular 19th century understanding of authority by using and expanding on Hebrews. That's my initial take. 

In terms of your references to Mark, at no time does Jesus call his authority *priesthood*.  It's a jump you make.  

The term ἐξουσία  can also mean "power".  He claims this power by charisma, as others claim it for him.

 

As to the disciples, the verb used is ποιέω which basically means to do or make. He made them disciples. He sends them out as messengers( using the term "apostello") to teach, with power in particular, to cast out demons.  (later Mark adds to call to repentance and to heal the sick).

 

Remember, it is the power to cast out demons that a non disciple uses in Jesus' name and which John questions. 

"Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

Mark 9:38.

 

Someone else is using the same power given to the disciples and using Jesus's name.  Jesus's response is not to stop them.  

Not only is priesthood not mentioned or needed but the power appears to come by the use of Jesus's  name.

My take, in modern terms, is that Jesus's word and teaching had the power to cure mental illness as well as physical illness.  The group act as healers. But Jesus is liberal with power.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

"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)."

My bold.  The jumps you make from power to priesthood just isn't there in Mark. You read into it using a later LDS theological worldview.

 

Once you slap the term priesthood on the power of God, whether in the earthly or heavenly temple,  or earthly and heavenly sphere, you exclude women.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Abulafia

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

That's exactly what I meant by charisma.  

If you look at the writings of Paul he makes many attempts to justify his role, including foreordination, that do not include the Jerusalem apostles.

 

6 hours ago, Abulafia said:

My take, in modern terms, is that Jesus's word and teaching had the power to cure mental illness as well as physical illness.  The group act as healers. But Jesus is liberal with power.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Once you slap the term priesthood on the power of God, whether in the earthly or heavenly temple,  or earthly and heavenly sphere, you exclude women.

I think conceptually, charisma (as I described it as a foreordained holy calling, kept through birth and translating into spiritual gifts of faith and good works in this life), being the power of God conferred upon a human spirit, is broadly entailed in what we call priesthood today. We don’t find the word “priesthood” in the Mark text, but I think “power” means the same thing.

We see people performing miracles all the time in the name of Jesus, rather, by the power of faith in His name. Broadly speaking, this is a manifestation of the power of God and conceptually a form of priesthood.

Since women possess the power of God in many ways, I consider them to possess many of the manifestations of priesthood. As daughters of God, by virtue of charisma; as daughters of Israel, by virtue of lineage or adoption; as Eves, by virtue of endowment; and as a couple, by virtue of sealing (the only way to form the highest priesthood order).

Obviously not much of this is mentioned in Mark, and neither is ordination to the various priesthood offices we use today, but do you see anything in the early texts that proscribes or conflicts with the way LDS use the power of God in the Restoration?

Edited December 19, 2016 by CV75

[Abulafia]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

 

 

I think conceptually, charisma (as I described it as a foreordained holy calling, kept through birth and translating into spiritual gifts of faith and good works in this life), being the power of God conferred upon a human spirit, is broadly entailed in what we call priesthood today. We don’t find the word “priesthood” in the Mark text, but I think “power” means the same thing.

We see people performing miracles all the time in the name of Jesus, rather, by the power of faith in His name. Broadly speaking, this is a manifestation of the power of God and conceptually a form of priesthood.

Since women possess the power of God in many ways, I consider them to possess many of the manifestations of priesthood. As daughters of God, by virtue of charisma; as daughters of Israel, by virtue of lineage or adoption; as Eves, by virtue of endowment; and as a couple, by virtue of sealing (the only way to form the highest priesthood order).

Obviously not much of this is mentioned in Mark, and neither is ordination to the various priesthood offices we use today, but do you see anything in the early texts that proscribes or conflicts with the way LDS use the power of God in the Restoration?

Yes, I do.  I have tried to explain why. You make a jump from power to priesthood because that is how you have been taught to conceptualize and frame God's power.  To do so, you must use latter day scripture because it isn't there in the earliest layers of the NT text. 

 

From a historical point of view I cannot make those same jumps.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

Yes, I do.  I have tried to explain why. You make a jump from power to priesthood because that is how you have been taught to conceptualize and frame God's power.  To do so, you must use latter day scripture because it isn't there in the earliest layers of the NT text. 

 

From a historical point of view I cannot make those same jumps.

But you are also saying that Mark allows an interpretation that charisma is the power of God; that anyone can access the power of God through faith in Christ; that women possess the power of God. All these are consistent with LDS beliefs. My calling these manifestations of the power of God as types of priesthood shouldn't change that, should it?

[Abulafia]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

But you are also saying that Mark allows an interpretation that charisma is the power of God; that anyone can access the power of God through faith in Christ; that women possess the power of God. All these are consistent with LDS beliefs. My calling these manifestations of the power of God as types of priesthood shouldn't change that, should it?

In my view using the term *priesthood* absolutely changes that.  Absolutely. The gender ramifications are profound.

 

[theplains]

On 16/12/2016 at 10:07 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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?

According to the scripture, only one person from the tribe of Judah was a priest, and that is Jesus
(as our High Priest).  Not even Jesse nor David were priests.

Jim

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Abulafia said:

In my view using the term *priesthood* absolutely changes that.  Absolutely. The gender ramifications are profound.

Only if you attach such significance to the term. Many faith systems ordain women priests, and as I noted above, the LDS faith teaches the many ways women are given the power of God.

Edited December 20, 2016 by CV75

[Benjamin Seeker]

56 minutes ago, theplains said:

According to the scripture, only one person from the tribe of Judah was a priest, and that is Jesus
(as our High Priest).  Not even Jesse nor David were priests.

Jim

There is a link between priesthood and kingship in LDS theology. Temple ordinances, the 2nd anointing, doctrines about theocratic rule in the millennium, JST on Melchizedek, and JS' sustaining as king in the council of 50 all point to some yet to be clearly defined connection. My guess is JS saw some link between his lineages in Ephraim and Jesse, his eventual kingship in the council of 50 and a lineal priesthood in the Smith family evidenced by JS proclaimed family right to what were two of the highest offices in early LDS priesthood, namely president of the church and Patriarch of the priesthood.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[Abulafia]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There is a link between priesthood and kingship in LDS theology. Temple ordinances, the 2nd anointing, doctrines about theocratic rule in the millennium, JST on Melchizedek, and JS' sustaining as king in the council of 50 all point to some yet to be clearly defined connection. My guess is JS saw some link between his lineages in Ephraim and Jesse, his eventual kingship in the council of 50 and a lineal priesthood in the Smith family evidenced by JS proclaimed family right to what were two of the highest offices in early LDS priesthood, namely president of the church and Patriarch of the priesthood.

This is interesting.  

I have always been under the impression that Joseph saw himself as prophet, priest, and king. Titles given to Jesus by later NT exegites. (Hebrews/ 1Peter) And using partcular interpretations of older Hebrew sacred and pseudepigrapic writings.

Prophet - who represents the mind of God to the people.

Priest - who intercedes on behalf of the people to God.

King - who shepherds, rules and keeps order over the people and so also has a judgement function.

There appears to be a conservative movement to identify all Christian men as Prophets, priests and Kings both in church and home ( with some troubling ramifications for women).

Some Catholic spokesmen and exegites are more liberal by teaching all christians, both  male and female should see themselves as Prophets/Prophetesses, Priests/Priestesses, and Kings/Queens particularly in the Eucharist. 

It seems to me that the church and Catholicism in particular have co-opted the priestly function (making intercession for the congregation by presenting sacrifice at the temple and synagogue historically) and widened it to include the kingly and prophetic to the exclusion of women in any real earthly sense?

 

 

 

 

[Abulafia]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

Only if you attach such significance to the term. Many faith systems ordain women priests, and as I noted above, the LDS faith teaches the many ways women are given the power of God.

A very recent phenomenon.  

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

A very recent phenomenon.  

Well, the Church is only 200 years old... But I do I think LDS teachings on women and the power of God are consistent with the text of Mark. The additional LDS teachings on priesthood keys and office do not negate any of that.

[Abulafia]

Well the church in a very real and practical sense co-opts the term priest and then excludes women from most management, eucharistic and leadership roles on that basis.  

 

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Abulafia said:

Well the church in a very real and practical sense co-opts the term priest and then excludes women from most management, eucharistic and leadership roles on that basis.

I’m not sure how this relates to a scholarly analysis of Mark. For example, you say that Mark did not use to the term “priest” in connection with Jesus' authority in the early texts: how can the Church possibly co-opt a term not said to be associated with Jesus' authority? Or, if you are referring to the term “power,” which he did use, does not the Church observe those teachings, along with other teachings and practices that were evidently retained as well as those that she considers to be restored?

[Abulafia]

37 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure how this relates to a scholarly analysis of Mark. For example, you say that Mark did not use to the term “priest” in connection with Jesus' authority in the early texts: how can the Church possibly co-opt a term not said to be associated with Jesus' authority? Or, if you are referring to the term “power,” which he did use, does not the Church observe those teachings, along with other teachings and practices that were evidently retained as well as those that she considers to be restored?

So, the question I would ask you in response, what is the NT precedent in the earliest layers of evidence, for excluding women from the roles that are presently co opted by priests. There is none?  Right?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

So, the question I would ask you in response, what is the NT precedent in the earliest layers of evidence, for excluding women from the roles that are presently co opted by priests. There is none?  Right?

"Role" is not a word appearing in these texts, but I don’t see that any "power" as mentioned in these texts has been co-opted by priests (at least in the LDS faith), and as far as I can tell, this power is manifest in the Church in the same ways today. The assumption that anything not in the text was not extant in the period of record, or that the text provides a complete narrative on the subject, is quite a jump I think.

I take your response to mean that the Church cannot co-opt from early Christian texts a term ("priest") that is not associated with them, and that the Church observes those texts, which means the Church uses the term "priest" in a way that is not inconsistent with these texts, while observing the term "power" as presented in these texts.

Edited December 21, 2016 by CV75

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

So, the question I would ask you in response, what is the NT precedent in the earliest layers of evidence, for excluding women from the roles that are presently co opted by priests. There is none?  Right?

I think part of the disconnect in the conversation here is that many, including myself, are unaware of the specific power-roles of women in the earliest layers of the text. Maybe you could start a new thread outlining the main arguments for what their roles were (I'm only suggesting a new thread because I have a feeling more people besides those following this thread will be interested)?

Edited December 21, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Abulafia said:

So, the question I would ask you in response, what is the NT precedent in the earliest layers of evidence, for excluding women from the roles that are presently co opted by priests. There is none?  Right?

 

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think part of the disconnect in the conversation here is that many, including myself, are unaware of the specific power-roles of women in the earliest layers of the text. Maybe you could start a new thread outlining the main arguments for what their roles were (I'm only suggesting a new thread because I have a feeling more people besides those following this thread will be interested)?

Another disconnect seems to be an awareness as to whether the Church can administer the priesthood order(s) as set in place while at the same time observing those other aspects of God’s power that manifest themselves differently.