Earliest Hint of Priesthood Restoration by Angels

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

One other quick point if you're gong by Prince's Power From on High. The McLellin Journals undermine his reading somewhat. (Not sure if you're referring to that or a more recent interview where he's dealt with these other arguments -- I'm afraid I just never have time to watch YouTube videos)

Gregory Prince’s recent study of the historical development of LDS priesthood makes at least two assertions that McLellin’s journal changes. Prince states that in June 1831 men were ordained to a new order called both the Order of Melchizedek and the High Priesthood. however, he asserts, “this did not yet refer to the office of high priest which, though appearing in the book of Mormon, was not yet applied to individuals in the Restoration,” and it was not until November 1831 that a revelation (D&C 68) established for the first time the office of high priest. Second, Prince asserts that, prior to September 1832, the term “priesthood” was used “exclusively in conjunction with High Priesthood.”

William G. Hartley, “The McLellin Journals and Early Mormon History,” in The Journals of William E. McLellin, 283.

I think the usual view these days is that the restoration didn't happen all at once but was a process. What exactly that means isn't entirely clear though. One theory is that there was a verbal call and then a later ordination. (This is actually still part of Mormon theology in some ways in the Temple where there are preparatory ordinances)

One interesting take on it all is Keller's although I'm not sure I buy it all.

Very interesting Clark.  I don't have the Hartley book on the McLellin Journals, but can you elaborate on whether the Dan Vogel reading in the JWHA essay I linked to, is in alignment with this information from your perspective.  Here is what he says about this time period, and I find it interesting.  

Quote

June 1831—Joseph Smith introduced the high priesthood, which quickly evolved from elders with additional authority to the office of high priest.With the introduction of the high priesthood, there were now two priesthoods (or authorities) in the church with separate origins—both bestowed by revelation.Prior to June 1831, the only major division of authority was between elders—the charismatic leaders—and all others: that is, priests, teachers, and deacons (see LDSD&C 20:38–45; CofC 17:8–9).14 However, it is important to note that while these men held different offices and callings, they had no concept that there were two priesthoods in the church.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why are you ruling out Moroni showing Cowdery the plates as one of the three witnesses?   

Oh no! Lol, I totally spaced on this one. Of course, it could be referencing that!

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Oh no! Lol, I totally spaced on this one. Of course, it could be referencing that!

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Very interesting Clark.  I don't have the Hartley book on the McLellin Journals, but can you elaborate on whether the Dan Vogel reading in the JWHA essay I linked to, is in alignment with this information from your perspective.  Here is what he says about this time period, and I find it interesting.  

I don't have the sources in question so I can't say too much. I was quoting from the Juvenile Instructor post on it from a few years back. 

While I know that priesthood → high priesthood is the common assumption (Vogel's hardly alone in making it) I'm not sure on it. Again I find the Book of Mormon use interesting here and usually pretty neglected. That makes sense from a Mormon view where the operating assumption is that Joseph read the Book of Mormon fairly superficially. So the implication is that it didn't have much of an impact on his theological development. If one is assuming some level of fraud though then I'm not sure such precise language can be neglected. Put an other way I think it poses somewhat of a problem for the fraudulent view that sees all this as a later development. (Of course even the fraud model can simply dismiss it as an artifact he forgot - but it seems pretty developed for that dismissal)

I'm writing a post on this for T&S. I'll fully admit up front this isn't something I'm well versed upon. But it is indeed interesting - I may well be missing something obvious though.

My own view is that there's just not enough information to decide. There's three main views that the JI post outlines well. I'm not sure we can really decide between them so we should keep things open. I just tend to see the Book of Mormon as offering evidence that I think has been neglected by all sides.

Edited February 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin McGuire]

Section 84 of the D&C comes September 22-23 in 1832 (the date is reasonably well established).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-22-23-september-1832-dc-84/1

This passage from it seems particularly important to your discussion:

Quote

and the lesser Priesthood continued, which Priesthood holdeth the keys of the ministring of Angels and the preparitory gospel, which gospel is the gospel of repentence  and of Baptism, and the remission of sins, and the Law of carnal commandments— which the lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the  children of Israel until John whom God raised up being fillid with the holy ghost from  his Mothers womb, for he was baptised while he was yet in his the mothers womb and was  ordained by the Angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews and to make straight the way of the Lord

What we see here is that the idea of being ministered to by angels is illustrated in John the Baptist, who is "ordained by the Angel of God".

Ben McGuire

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think most of the theological construction for Alma 13 you can get from Hebrews in the NT.  Last time I compared those chapters that talk about Melchezedek in Hebrews to what is found in Alma 13, I didn't find anything that really stands out as uniquely innovative about the content in Alma.

I think that reading the content of the BoM as anticipatory to later Priesthood revelations is anachronistic.  I'm influenced by Charlie Harrell's chapter on priesthood development in his informative book "This is my Doctrine".  If you haven't read it, I recommend it.  I haven't gotten Terryl Givens new Wrestling the Angel book, and I wonder if he covers this topic about the development of the priesthood doctrine.  

 

I think I'd disagree on everything in Alma 13 being in Hebrews. There are parallels of course. But the differences are important. I've not read Harell's chapter yet but I have read Givens. (I'm far behind in my reading I'll admit)

In either case it seems something that Joseph would have been focused upon during the translation process so I don't think it can simply be dismissed as an important context. Again, if we are viewing just the fraudulent model then that's doubly true since it had to be something Joseph was thinking about carefully.

Edited February 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Section 84 of the D&C comes September 22-23 in 1832 (the date is reasonably well established).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-22-23-september-1832-dc-84/1

This passage from it seems particularly important to your discussion:

What we see here is that the idea of being ministered to by angels is illustrated in John the Baptist, who is "ordained by the Angel of God".

Ben McGuire

1832 does seem to be the year that this idea emerges, at least publicly. This revelation also gives the concept unbroken chain of priesthood chain, which is a clearly related idea.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Section 84 of the D&C comes September 22-23 in 1832 (the date is reasonably well established).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-22-23-september-1832-dc-84/1

This passage from it seems particularly important to your discussion:

What we see here is that the idea of being ministered to by angels is illustrated in John the Baptist, who is "ordained by the Angel of God".

Ben McGuire

Ben, 

Can you elaborate on this idea.  The quote says that John was ordained by an unnamed angel, this is consistent with Christian biblical beliefs about John having a role as a forerunner.  Lets not place too much emphasis on our current use of the word ordain, as we know this use was not specific to priesthood ordinances in the early church.  Another interesting concept in that same chapter is how John was baptized while in his Mother's womb.  Interesting idea there, later changed in the 1835 version to in "his childhood".  

I think we need to be careful about placing modern usage of the words ordained by the angel at eight days old and thinking that means a physical angel lay hands on his head and gave him priesthood authority.  

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think I'd disagree on everything in Alma 13 being in Hebrews. There are parallels of course. But the differences are important. I've not read Harell's chapter yet but I have read Givens. (I'm far behind in my reading I'll admit)

I'd have to go back and review to see for sure, but I didn't see many differences myself.  BTW, did Givens address Priesthood development in his book?  

Edited February 21, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't have the sources in question so I can't say too much. I was quoting from the Juvenile Instructor post on it from a few years back. 

While I know that priesthood → high priesthood is the common assumption (Vogel's hardly alone in making it) I'm not sure on it. Again I find the Book of Mormon use interesting here and usually pretty neglected. That makes sense from a Mormon view where the operating assumption is that Joseph read the Book of Mormon fairly superficially. So the implication is that it didn't have much of an impact on his theological development. If one is assuming some level of fraud though then I'm not sure such precise language can be neglected. Put an other way I think it poses somewhat of a problem for the fraudulent view that sees all this as a later development. (Of course even the fraud model can simply dismiss it as an artifact he forgot - but it seems pretty developed for that dismissal)

I'm writing a post on this for T&S. I'll fully admit up front this isn't something I'm well versed upon. But it is indeed interesting - I may well be missing something obvious though.

My own view is that there's just not enough information to decide. There's three main views that the JI post outlines well. I'm not sure we can really decide between them so we should keep things open. I just tend to see the Book of Mormon as offering evidence that I think has been neglected by all sides.

Thanks for the JI link, I'll check it out.  My views on the BoM are that it seems very compatible with many Christian ideas at the time, I think in Modern Mormonism we anachronistically read many things into the BoM that would not have been understood this way by the original members.  Harrell's book does a nice job pointing these kinds of things out.  

Mormons are expert proof texters! 

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting idea there, later changed in the 1835 version to in "his childhood".  

Thanks you for this! I was just looking at this last night and thinking that childhood was clearly the wrong term. In Joseph's earliest theology baptism is associated with the reception of the priesthood (I'm writing another post on this right now). I saw that sequence of events was clearly correct, but childhood didn't quite get the idea fully across. I assumed it meant infancy, but "in the womb" is even better. Wow!

Edited February 21, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

I'm posting on the earliest doctrines about Priesthood ordination in a new thread. It merits it's own discussion, I think.

Edited February 21, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

Can you elaborate on this idea.  The quote says that John was ordained by an unnamed angel, this is consistent with Christian biblical beliefs about John having a role as a forerunner.

Vogel suggests that:

Quote

This revelation also lays the groundwork for Smith’s and Cowdery’s subsequent claims to angelic ordination, explaining that although the lesser priesthood had “continue[d] with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John [the Baptist] … he was … ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews” (84:27–28; CofC 83:4d–f ). However, John was a special case that Smith had yet to apply to himself.

But this seems to be an interpretation suited to his thesis. It could just as easily be suggested the other way around - that this wasn't seen as a special case in this sense, and that the language is used because a connection had already been made.

There is no Christian Biblical belief about John being ordained to the priesthood by an angel. Earlier, Vogel notes this about the 1832 history:

Quote

 

Summer 1832—Joseph Smith began writing his history, the preamble of which outlined his special status as church leader and the authority upon which he founded the church. However, it did not mention angelic ordination, although it referred to the reception of two priesthoods. First, the “reception of the Holy Priesthood by the minist[e]ring of Angels [note the plural despite the later claim of one angel] to administer the letter of the Gospel, the Law and commandments as they were given unto him, and the ordinances.” Similar to the Articles and Covenants, this merely states that authority was derived from the appearance of angels (in association with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon) and the reception of divine commands. At least, this is how the Whitmers and McLellin (and presumably other believers) would have read this passage.

This preamble also stated that Joseph Smith received “a confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood,” which (as we know) came by revelation in June 1831. Still, there was no mention of John the Baptist, and no provision for Peter, James, and John.

 

Here is the problem presented by Section 84, that Vogel doesn't address well at all. Here are verses 26 and 28 for contrast:

26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

"this power" seems to refer to the priesthood (if not, it's antecedent is unclear). But, what comes out of this is that the two points mentioned in verse 26 with regard to the lesser priesthood are the "ministering of angels" and "the preparatory gospel". Both of these things are repeated in verse 28 - as illustrations of this point. The first is in being "ordained by the angel of God" and the second is repeated in the "to prepare them for the Coming of the Lord". The ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel. The challenge this brings for Vogel is that is suggests that by September of 1828, that "the ministering of angels" is being understood specifically by the idea of angelic ordinations. And so he has to contend that in between the summer 1832 composition of that history and the September 1832 writing of the revelation, that the meaning of this phrase underwent significant change. It seems much more likely that it is the other way around - that the language in Section 84 represents an already understood meaning and context, and we see that context in the 1832 history.

And while what Vogel describes of the 1832 history is correct, it doesn't actually present the full context which does contribute to my argument:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1#full-transcript

Quote

firstly he receiving  the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of  the holy Priesthood by the ministring of— Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel the Law and commandments as they were given unto him and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation  and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach  the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God  confered upon him and the continuation of the  blessings of God to him &c——

That "the reception of the holy Priesthood" refers to the lesser priesthood is understood from this narrative viewed as a sequence of events. And this confirms the idea that we see in Septermber of 1832 in the parallels in Section 84 between an ordination and the ministering of angels. So I think that we can use the notion of "ordain" as being about an ordination to the priesthood (as opposed to some other ordination). But the emphasis of my comments was more about this idea of the ministering of angels (84:26) becoming an ordination by an angel (84:28).

And while Section 84 is where we encounter this idea of a "lesser priesthood" as Vogel points out, the idea of the Melchizedek Priesthood as a "high priesthood" is already in the 1832 history - and this suggests that whether articulated or not, the Aaronic Priesthood was already viewed as a lesser priesthood (we have this language of comparison that comes before Section 84).

So I think that there is probably a reasonable case to be made that Vogel has it wrong in these specifics here. That is, the chronology of change is less discrete than he describes, and that Section 84 isn't exactly the demarcation between one set of ideas and another that he suggests.

Ben McGuire

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So I think that there is probably a reasonable case to be made that Vogel has it wrong in these specifics here. That is, the chronology of change is less discrete than he describes, and that Section 84 isn't exactly the demarcation between one set of ideas and another that he suggests.

Agreed. The 1832 history by itself can be interpreted as angelic ordination, and with section 84, coming relatively soon after the history, spelling out the possibility of ordination by angel, the obvious interpretation of the 1832 history, I think, is ordination by angel, and not just a verbal command.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the JI link, I'll check it out.  My views on the BoM are that it seems very compatible with many Christian ideas at the time, I think in Modern Mormonism we anachronistically read many things into the BoM that would not have been understood this way by the original members.  Harrell's book does a nice job pointing these kinds of things out.  

Mormons are expert proof texters! 

I think that's true, but by the same token I think people assume Joseph wasn't thinking about things until they are made explicit in practice whereas the arguments for that are lacking. i.e. the assumption that he makes no distinction between high priesthood and priesthood are themselves just as circular as the proof texting of some Mormons reading contemporary practice into older texts. My typical baseline hypothesis is that Joseph's thinking about theology years before it gets made explicit. (Much like the Fanny Alger situation and comments about marrying Lamanites precedes the formal teachings on polygamy by many years)

The reality is that "high priesthood" is used fairly early and the assumption it's merely synonymous with priesthood is problematic. We can argue about exegesis of Alma 13 but I don't think we can dismiss that phrase (which doesn't occur in the Bible). For instance I think a compelling argument could be made that this was an argument about the Nephites establishing a high priest ala Lev 21. That's clearly different (albeit arguably related) to the later theology a few years later with D&C 84 (particularly with verse 63) which is different than what develops later where we have a separate office of high priest.

Again while there are parallels of Alma 13 to Hebrews the main emphasis of the author of Hebrews is Jesus as high priest whereas Alma's whole point is an order of high priests and associated calls and ordinances with ministering of angels to prepare the message. This is a pretty big significant difference. Even if one is again adopting the fraudulent model this means that Joseph is at minimum appropriating the theology of Christ as high priest in 1829 in terms of a theology of priesthood such that selected men are made like Christ in an ordinance that looks towards him in some sense. That's pretty significant (and arguably goes well beyond the simple theology of laying on of hands).

My point isn't that all this later post D&C 84 theology was known by Joseph merely that a distinction between priest, elder and high priesthood seems to be present in the Book of Mormon. In particular that matters for the fraudulent model. Yet there's no evidence of a distinction between Melchezedek and Aaronic Priesthood in the Book of Mormon that I can see. But we have to be careful in that's different from there not being pretty pronounced theology of priesthood and ordinations in the text. So I'm open to reading Alma 13 in terms of the Protestant understanding of the day yet the differences from Hebrew, particularly Hebrews 7 can't be glossed over. There is that clear difference in emphasis away from a single transcendent high priest to a high priesthood with calls and rituals.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I think that's true, but by the same token I think people assume Joseph wasn't thinking about things until they are made explicit in practice whereas the arguments for that are lacking. i.e. the assumption that he makes no distinction between high priesthood and priesthood are themselves just as circular as the proof texting of some Mormons reading contemporary practice into older texts. My typical baseline hypothesis is that Joseph's thinking about theology years before it gets made explicit. (Much like the Fanny Alger situation and comments about marrying Lamanites precedes the formal teachings on polygamy by many years)

This is a good point and your theory is possible, and this is why critical thinking and scholarship are so important.  We shouldn't just assume that Joseph is thinking about theological constructs years before they are made explicit unless we can find evidence for this happening.  I would agree with you that earlier ideas might later evolve into more concrete and explicit practices, but this doesn't presuppose some kind of conscious intent on Joseph's part, I think this is how many things naturally happen for each of us.  

I also wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that your explanation could explain some of what we see Joseph doing, I just also see a lot of other examples where he's contradicting earlier teachings and personally I see Joseph's theology all over the place on many topics, he seems to me to be extracting ideas from his experiences and environment and incorporating those ideas in a very haphazard way.  

You make some other good points about the Bible and Hebrews, it would be interesting to see someone explore these concepts further.  Thanks for the conversation! 

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

We shouldn't just assume that Joseph is thinking about theological constructs years before they are made explicit unless we can find evidence for this happening.  I would agree with you that earlier ideas might later evolve into more concrete and explicit practices, but this doesn't presuppose some kind of conscious intent on Joseph's part, I think this is how many things naturally happen for each of us.  

I agree and evidence is key of course. My point was much more than most of the discussions neglect the place of the Book of Mormon too much. Again that makes sense for faithful arguments where there's a presumption of ignorance on the part of Joseph. That doesn't work for fraudulent models like Vogel where it presents clear thinking on these issues by Joseph.

 

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I agree and evidence is key of course. My point was much more than most of the discussions neglect the place of the Book of Mormon too much. Again that makes sense for faithful arguments where there's a presumption of ignorance on the part of Joseph. That doesn't work for fraudulent models like Vogel where it presents clear thinking on these issues by Joseph.

My readings of Vogel, I don't believe he emphasizes the fraud elements as much as he focuses on naturalistic explanations to explain events.  Which is the evidence side of things again.  I believe he shows evidence of the natural evolution of an idea, of an external influencing event that contributed to the ideas that Joseph promoted.  I think this method can be harmonized with members believing in Joseph's prophetic calling, especially if a person considers that God may have put people and places and things in the path of Joseph so he can borrow from and re-appropriate these ideas.  

One other thing, I find Vogel's analysis of and work on Mormon studies to be highly reliable and fair.  I think he's earned the respect of his peers many times over and is one of the most informed individuals when it comes to early Mormon history alive today.  

[Kevin Christensen]

Vogel's work has it's virtues and defenders, but I think it also appropriate to mention that it notable for a very conspicuous degree of ideological saturation.  Alan Goff has explained this at length on many occasions, such as here:

Quote

We never encounter the past as it actually happened, but we interpret those events from the perspective of the present. If the interpreter’s present is founded on a positivistic metaphysics, [Page 156] then positivism is the screen through which the evidence from the past is filtered to separate the valid from invalid evidence. I have demonstrated that the empiricist variety of positivism is Vogel’s fundamental conceptual scheme for determining what did and what didn’t happen in the past. Even when the historical actors assert a supernatural interpretation of events, the positivist will insist on reducing that explanation to something amenable to his or her own positivistic/naturalistic ideology.

When Vogel encounters narratives told by David Whitmer, we see his positivistic naturalism at work, substituting a naturalistic understanding of the events for that offered by those involved. Vogel must invent a little fiction to try to displace Whitmer’s account of a trip from Harmony to Fayette, which includes supernatural claims. As he does throughout his biography, Vogel permits himself way too much speculation about what might have happened instead of what the historical actors reported and the historical record states.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-inevitability-of-epistemology-in-historiography-theory-history-and-zombie-mormon-history/#more-4820

And with respect to the Priesthood restoration, I would think the obvious place to start one's inquiries would be "Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations, 1820-1844", which has a new enlarged edition.

https://deseretbook.com/p/opening-heavens-accounts-divine-manifestations-1820-1844-john-w-welch-3820?variant_id=147807-paperback

I haven't got the second edition yet.  But the one I have includes a large number of original documents, including the 1832 history and the early anti-LDS newspaper articles that bring mention things early that too many critics place late.

And I also think that any discussion of Melchizedek Priesthood and Alma 13 and the New Testament should include a demonstrated awareness of what has been said on the topic by David Wright on the skeptical side, John Welch, and John Tvedtnes, and even yours truly on the believing side, and consider the welcome aid of Margaret Barker, who also has chapters on the Melchizedek Priesthood in the First Temple and early Christianity some of her books.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[hope_for_things]

On 2/21/2017 at 9:04 AM, hope_for_things said:

Now this could be referring to a John the Baptist or Peter, James and John visit, but there is no specific reference to those individuals by name.  Also I don't see how you're saying that Oliver wasn't involved with the Angel Moroni.  But, one question I have is whether even Moroni is named at this point in November 1830.  I'm going to have to do some more research, but I seem to recall that the naming of Moroni also was evolutionary and happened later, and you're probably familiar with some sources where the named Angel was Nephi.  

Just by way of follow up, the earliest reference to Moroni specifically that I could find was in 1835 as well.  Seems like 1835 was a banner year for naming angelic messengers.  

Also, as for the Nephi reference, it seems like the T&S publication is primary source for the Nephi reference and possibly influenced the other Nephi references that were published.  I still haven't read a satisfactory explanation for why the T&S would have used the name Nephi when Joseph was the editor of that paper and Joseph had earlier referred to the Angel as Moroni, and called him Moroni multiple times during his life.  Calling the angel Nephi in T&S seems like a strange anomaly to just accidentally get inserted into the T&S publication.  

[Johnnie Cake]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:35 AM, Nevo said:

I think Dan Vogel makes a good case for angelic priesthood ordination being a later development, but I find it interesting that even Vogel sees a historical kernel underlying the claimed ordination by Peter, James, and John. He accepts that Oliver Cowdery had a vision of three angels while fleeing a mob with Joseph Smith in July 1830, and that Cowdery believed the angels gave him a "blessing," but Vogel thinks Cowdery probably originally interpreted these figures as the Three Nephites. Vogel speculates that Joseph Smith later "inserted himself into the experience as one who saw the personages along with Cowdery and used it to justify the 1835 ordination of apostles" (see Vogel, "Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives," 76n52).

Assuming that Vogel is correct, what is at stake for the believer? Not a lot in my view. Cowdery is on record claiming an angelic visitation as early as 1829. It is not implausible, then, that he also believed he was visited by three angels in 1830. Could Joseph have implanted false memories in 1834/1835? Perhaps. But in any case they weren't just making stuff up out of whole cloth. If Cowdery had a memory of being visited by three angels—apostles of Jesus Christ—who laid hands on his head and gave him a blessing, I can see how he might later have interpreted that as a conferral of priesthood authority.

And don't forget Martin Harris who walked and talked for several miles with Jesus Christ...who was in the form of a talking white tailed deer.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just by way of follow up, the earliest reference to Moroni specifically that I could find was in 1835 as well.  Seems like 1835 was a banner year for naming angelic messengers. 

Mind blown!

[JarMan]

On 2/20/2017 at 8:35 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

What is the earliest known account or even hint of priesthood restoration through angels? As far as I understand, Joseph Smith's unfinished 1832 history preamble is the earliest hint. Can anyone do better?

I implied this in a response in your other thread but I thought I would mention it here, as well. I believe 3 Nephi 18:37 is showing the resurrected Christ ordaining his apostles to the priesthood. This is commonly seen by members of the church as a confirmation but I think Moroni 2 and 3 show that it was actually an ordination. So if you want to consider the resurrected Christ as an angel it pushes the date up to May of 1829. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

I implied this in a response in your other thread but I thought I would mention it here, as well. I believe 3 Nephi 18:37 is showing the resurrected Christ ordaining his apostles to the priesthood. This is commonly seen by members of the church as a confirmation but I think Moroni 2 and 3 show that it was actually an ordination. So if you want to consider the resurrected Christ as an angel it pushes the date up to May of 1829. 

Cool line of thinking. Of course, Jesus is also God, so the ordination could support either line of thinking, but I lean towards the God side since that is consistent with the other early texts.

The Book of Mormon is interesting because it has Jesus giving authority to give the Holy Ghost by the "laying on" of hands in Moroni 2:1, but it also has him giving authority to baptize by edict in 3 Nephi 11, or at least the laying on of hands is conspicuously missing there. The  apologetic response is to read it in, but the inconsistency between the two events matches the inconsistency of the 1838 History's conflicting methods of Aaronic vs. Melchizedek priesthood reception. Of course there is also the other early texts on Priesthood reception that emphasize divine command (for those who haven't looked at the other thread, these include Moses 6:67, JST Gen 14, and Alma 13:3).

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Mind blown!

Early Mormon history I find quite fascinating.  The things that we assume and the developed concepts that we have today are not what they had in the early years.  This can be a challenging concept for those that believe that everything is neat and tidy and have a concept of a God that clearly communicates doctrines in very specific detail.  This just isn't what history shows in Mormonism or in the entire history of religion either.