1829-1830 Doctrine of Priesthood Reception

[Benjamin Seeker]

If it's worth anything to anyone, so far I've come to the following conclusion on the earliest doctrines on reception of the Priesthood, so 1829-1830ish:

• The verbal call from God is paramount in receiving the Priesthood (as far as I can tell, there is no reference to angelic ordination in this time period). Evidences include:
  • Description of receiving the priesthood in JST Gen 14, dictated sometime between mid 1830 and early 1831: "29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name."
  • Adam's reception of the priesthood in Moses 6, dictated in November-December 1830: "66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; 67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. 68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen." Verse 67's declaration that he is after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years is a declaration of priesthood. The Book of Mormon and JST frequently use holy order or after the order of the son of God to reference priesthood. The without beginning of days or end of years is included in the discussion on priesthood in JST Gen 14, referenced above, in Alma 13, referenced below, and is rooted in the description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.
  • Description of receiving the priesthood in Alma 13, dictated in 1829: " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such."
  • (Later evidence) The introduction of JS' 1832 history, which reference three events, the reception of the "Holy Priesthood" through the ministering of angels, the "confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood," and the "keys of the kingdom conferred upon him."
  • (Later evidence) The 1838 history clarifies the most likely meaning of the "confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood." The 1838 history states, " We now became anxious to have that promise realized to us, which the Angel that conferred upon us the Aaronick Priesthood had given us, viz: that provided we continued faithful; we should also have  the Melchesidec Priesthood... we had not long  been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came  unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, and that he also  should ordain me to the same office, and then <to> ordain others as it  should be made known unto us, from time to time: we were however comman ded to defer this our ordination untill, such times, as it should be practicable  to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled  together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other..."
• There is an ordination, but it's the Holy Ghost that makes the ordination effective, not neccessarily, or ever explicitly stated, an unbroken line of priesthood ordinations back to Adam or God. Evidences include:
  • Description of the ordination of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons from the Articles and Covenants revelation (April 1830, see D&C 20:60): " Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon,  is to be ordained according to the gifts  and calling of God unto them by the pow er of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one  who ordains them."
  • Description or ordination of teachers and priests in Moroni 3 (1829), "4 And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men; and they ordained them by the power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them."
• There is no reference to lesser and greater priesthood; however, there is a clear delineation between the authority to baptize and the authority to give the Holy Ghost. See 3rd Nephi 11 and Moroni 2.
• Baptism is also associated with receiving the Priesthood. Evidences include:
  • Description of reception of the priesthood in Alma 49 (1829): " 30 Yea, and there was continual peace among them, and exceedingly great prosperity in the church because of their heed and diligence which they gave unto the word of God, which was declared unto them by Helaman, and Shiblon, and Corianton, and Ammon and his brethren, yea, and by all those who had been ordained by the holy order of God, being baptized unto repentance, and sent forth to preach among the people."
  • Description of reception of the priesthood in Alma 13 (1829): " 3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such." This preparatory redemption most likely references repentance and baptism (see D&C 84:27, dictated in 1832).
  • Adam's strongly linked baptism in water, fire, and reception of the priesthood in Moses 6 (1830): "64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. 65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man. 66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; 67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. 68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen."
  • (later evidence) Description of John the Baptist's ordination to the lesser priesthood in D&C 84 (1832, original wording here): "...and the lesser,  priesthood continued which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministring of Angels and the  preparetory gospel which gospel is the gospel  of repentance and of baptism and the remission  of sins and the law of Carnal commandments  which the Lord in his wrath swore caused to continue with the house of Aaron, among the children  of Israel until John, whom God raised up being filled with the holy Ghost from his mothers womb for he was baptized while he was yet in the 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 before the face  of his people to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in  whose hand is given all power" While the discussion here could be seen as only reference to John's mission as forerunner, it can also be easily interpreted as speaking specifically to the Aaronic Priesthood. The passages about John are in the context of describing the lineage of the Aaronic Priesthood, and as illustrated by the Book of Mormon and JST Moses examples, baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost are strongly correlated with reception of the Priesthood (Also, thank you Hope for pointing me to the original wording which makes the chronology of baptism-ordination extremely clear!).
  • (EDIT. I almost forgot...) Joseph and Oliver's own reception of the priesthood directly correlated with baptism. See Lucy's history, JS' history, etc. The fact that the official history has them ordaining each other again after baptism doesn't have so much to do with them being members of the church per se, as Joseph Fielding (or F.?) suggests, but instead is fulfilling this doctrinal imperative that reception of the Priesthood follows baptism or a preparatory redemption.

Some of the above is dependent on the secondary sources being discusses in the other priesthood thread right now, but some of these are just my personal conclusions based on the primary sources. I don't believe that this negates the possibility of JS and Oliver believing they had experiences with angels associated with priesthood. If that is the case, the interpretation of those events was likely still evolving and they weren't discussing them, even with other insiders, as Dan Vogel has clearly documented.

I'll post more on later developments as I find them and have time. The concept of angelic ordination and priesthood lineage introduced in 1832 is next...

Edited February 21, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

So, my biggest take away from all of this, which Dan Vogel and probably others have pointed out, is that Joseph Smith didn't understand the ministration of Peter, James, and John as the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, at least not for the entirety of the 1830s! Instead, he believed the original reception of this higher priesthood authority happened when he and Oliver heard the voice of the Lord commanding them to ordain each other to the office of elder, and to ordain others, in 1829 while praying at the Whitmer's house.

Overview: My own understanding of the sources and evidence is that this command of the voice of the Lord for the reception of the priesthood is the most important aspect of general priesthood reception in the earliest understanding of priesthood (1829-1831). Then as an unbroken priesthood lineage and a clear distinction between a greater and lesser priesthood becomes doctrine in 1832 and later, the command by the voice of the Lord continues to be the most important factor in Joseph's understanding of his reception of the "High" Priesthood, later called the Melchizedek Priesthood, until at least 1838. In these years (1832ish-1838ish), it appears that Joseph claimed general Melchizedek priesthood authority through the revelatory command of God (and the power of the Holy Ghost, see OP), and he understood Peter, James, and John's visit as conferring the "keys of the kingdom," constituting and ordaining Joseph and Oliver apostles. After that period, it's possible that he began emphasizing the importance of Peter, James, and John in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood while maintaining the doctrine of the importance of a revelatory command.

Nitty Gritty (details and evidence)

1829-1831 (before High Priesthood or the distinction between greater and lesser priesthood is made): To get this subject right we have to start with as close to an accurate estimation of Joseph's understanding of Priesthood reception in 1829 as possible. In the OP, I've shown many of the evidences for a revelatory command of God being the most salient aspect of priesthood reception. These included the descriptions of priesthood ordination found in JST Gen 14:29, Moses 6:67, and Alma 13:3 (see OP for full text). These are all the earliest texts dictated by JS on the subject, and they are all dependent on Hebrew 7, which makes a clear distinction between priests of the "Levitical Priesthood" or "order of Aaron" and the priest "after the order of Melchizedek," or Jesus Christ. It addresses the lineal component of priests from Aaron's descendency and contrasts that with Christ's priesthood, who came from a non-priesthood bearing tribe (verses 11-14). Then comes the kicker, where it explains the source of Christ's authority, which is the word of God, " Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (verses 17 and 21). So, Joseph's most significant biblical source on priesthood doesn't attribute priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" to lineage, and neither do any of Joseph's earliest revelations/translations. They all match in claiming a revelatory command/edict/comission as the source of priesthood authority.

This interpretation is supported by the following evidences, originally pointed out in "Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives" by Dan Vogel:

• Lucy Mack Smith describes Joseph receiving authority to baptize, "One morning however they sat down to their usual work [Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water and each of them be baptized[. T]hey immediately went down to the susquehanae river and obeyed the mandate given them through the Urim and Thummin[. As they were on their return to the house they overheard Samuel [Smith] in a secluded spot engaged in secret prayer [.] They had now received authority to baptize..." No angels or unbroken lineage of ordinations, just divine command.
• Jesus' verbal commission for Nephi to baptize in 3rd Nephi 11.
• David Whitmer said, “I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834, 5, or 6.”
• Franklin D. Richards wrote, “I enquired of David and John [Whitmer] who say that they do not have any knowledge of, neither do the records show, concerning Peter, James, and John’s coming to the prophet Joseph.”
• William McLellin, one of the original LDS 12 apostles, wrote, "In 1831 I heard Joseph tell his experience<many times> about angels visits, and about finding the plates, and their contents coming to light but I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James,and John’s visit and ordination. <till> It was told some year<s> or two afterward <in ohio>.”

Like I mentioned in the OP, there is no reference to a lesser vs. greater priesthood in any of the earliest translations or revelation. There is a clear distinction between the authority to baptize and the authority to give the Holy Ghost in the Book of Mormon, but there is no hint that it is understood in an Aaronic vs. Melchizedek type fashion. Instead, all explicit references to priesthood order are to Melchizedek or to the "Son of God" (JST Gen 14, Moses 6, Alma 13), ideas that can be traced to Hebrews 7. My best guess is that this reflects Joseph's understanding of Priesthood as transformed after Christ, consistent with Hebrew 7. The old law and, by implication, the old priesthood are done away with, and so JS is focusing on priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, and it's not apparent that he is giving the priesthood after the order Aaron any thought at all as none of his 1829-1830 revelations or translations make any reference to it whatsoever.

Another evidence of this is their earliest understanding of the office of "elder." Today, it is a general office of the Melchizedek priesthood, but in the Book of Mormon and in 1830, it was one of the highest offices of church leadership and was equated with the 12 disciples/apostles. Evidences include:

• Moroni 3:1, "1 The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers—"
• Articles and Covenants (1830): The duty of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, and members of the church  of Christ:—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize and to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons... and the giving of the Holy Ghost..."

Instead of having a greater priesthood "elder" and lesser priesthood "priests, teacher, and deacon," it is apparently understood as one priesthood with a top leadership office of elder, with graduated authority and duties under that.

It's also important to keep in mind that Peter, James, and John, though they are not referenced as making a specific visit, do have a clear place in the doctrines of the ministration of angels and divine authority in 1829. D&C 7 reads, "7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come." This 1829 revelation makes Peter, James, and John ministering angels who hold "keys," and this will become significant just a few years later.

I'll continue with the details and evidence surrounding how this original understanding was both held onto and transformed in later periods in a future post (two people liked the first post, so despite no one adding any commentary or pushback, I'm guessing people are appreciating this).

Edited February 22, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Overview: My own understanding of the sources and evidence is that this command of the voice of the Lord for the reception of the priesthood is the most important aspect of general priesthood reception in the earliest understanding of priesthood (1829-1831). Then as an unbroken priesthood lineage and a clear distinction between a greater and lesser priesthood becomes doctrine in 1832 and later, the command by the voice of the Lord continues to be the most important factor in Joseph's understanding of his reception of the "High" Priesthood, later called the Melchizedek Priesthood, until at least 1838. In these years (1832ish-1838ish), it appears that Joseph claimed general Melchizedek priesthood authority through the revelatory command of God (and the power of the Holy Ghost, see OP), and he understood Peter, James, and John's visit as conferring the "keys of the kingdom," constituting and ordaining Joseph and Oliver apostles. After that period, it's possible that he began emphasizing the importance of Peter, James, and John in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood while maintaining the doctrine of the importance of a revelatory command.

Ben,

Thanks for the detailed post, its fun to read and I enjoy the analysis you're doing, thanks for sharing with us.  

I'm wondering if this idea that a vision of Peter, James and John in 1829 was later reinterpreted to have a greater meaning and emphasis and specific connection to keys of authority, I wonder if we might have a corollary scenario happening with the doctrine of sealing and proxy rituals for the dead with Elijah being the angelic authority who gave keys to Joseph and Oliver for this purpose.  

If you look at the first account of this vision April 3, 1836 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-3-april-1836-dc-110/2, it specifically mentions Elijah and other names of angels (Moses & Elias).  With respect to sealing power and these proxy rituals for the dead, you don't see any mention of that concept until 1840 where I believe Joseph was giving a sermon at a funeral and that is the first time this doctrine of proxy rituals for the dead begins to be articulated.    Later in Nauvoo these concepts continued to evolve, and even after Joseph's death we've seen a large amount of evolution of these doctrines until you get to current narrative about Elijah bestowing very specific keys of authority to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple in 1836.

Perhaps this is just another example of the development of doctrine within the Mormon tradition.  Very interesting.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm wondering if this idea that a vision of Peter, James and John in 1829 was later reinterpreted to have a greater meaning and emphasis and specific connection to keys of authority, I wonder if we might have a corollary scenario happening with the doctrine of sealing and proxy rituals for the dead with Elijah being the angelic authority who gave keys to Joseph and Oliver for this purpose.  

If you look at the first account of this vision April 3, 1836 http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-3-april-1836-dc-110/2, it specifically mentions Elijah and other names of angels (Moses & Elias).  With respect to sealing power and these proxy rituals for the dead, you don't see any mention of that concept until 1840 where I believe Joseph was giving a sermon at a funeral and that is the first time this doctrine of proxy rituals for the dead begins to be articulated.    Later in Nauvoo these concepts continued to evolve, and even after Joseph's death we've seen a large amount of evolution of these doctrines until you get to current narrative about Elijah bestowing very specific keys of authority to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland temple in 1836.

Perhaps this is just another example of the development of doctrine within the Mormon tradition.  Very interesting.  

Really interesting observation. I hadn't connected these dots before, and it makes perfect sense.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Instead of having a greater priesthood "elder" and lesser priesthood "priests, teacher, and deacon," it is apparently understood as one priesthood with a top leadership office of elder, with graduated authority and duties under that.

Which has not changed.  Yes it has been better defined but the structure is still the same

There is one Priesthood with graduated authority and duties, of which the Aaronic Priesthood is an "appendage"

[JarMan]

Benjamin, how does Moroni 3 support your thesis? I read Moroni 3 as indicating an unbroken line of priesthood authority - conferred by the laying on of hands, or ordination - directly back to Christ. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Which has not changed.  Yes it has been better defined but the structure is still the same

There is one Priesthood with graduated authority and duties, of which the Aaronic Priesthood is an "appendage"

That's a great point. It's nice to see the continuity there.

[Benjamin Seeker]

9 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Benjamin, how does Moroni 3 support your thesis? I read Moroni 3 as indicating an unbroken line of priesthood authority - conferred by the laying on of hands, or ordination - directly back to Christ. 

I agree that you can see a line of priesthood back to Christ in Moroni 3, but there is obviously a difference between those who first receive the priesthood (during a vacuum of priesthood) and others who are ordained after. In the 1829-1830 understanding, those who are ordained after can trace their priesthood to the original source, but those who first get it in a vacuum, receive it through a divine edict from God (Moses 6:67, JST Gen 14, 3 Ne. 11, the 1838 account of the reception of the Melchizedek priesthood, and the New Testament source Hebrew 7). Alma 13, which is the most in depth exploration of priesthood reception in the Book of Mormon, doesn't even hint at lineal priesthood. JST Gen 14, another important early doctrinal exposition on priesthood, doesn't hint at lineal succession either. I think this is purposeful as Hebrews 7 clearly contrasts Christ's non-lineal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to lineal Levitical priesthood.

Other aspects of Moroni 3 that do clearly support my thesis include the role of the Holy Ghost in priesthood ordination and the early understanding of the office of elder.

[JarMan]

As I prepared for last week's GD lesson I was puzzled by JSH 68-72 because 1) the angel ordains JS and OC to the priesthood, then 2) they baptize each other, then 3) they ordain each other to the priesthood. Why would they need to ordain each other after they had already been ordained by the angel? It's almost like the original story had no angel in it. And then in a subsequent edit the angel part was added. Except that the part where they ordained each other was mistakenly left in.  But even if this is the case the baptisms/ordinations seem out of order. Nobody in class was able to come up with a good reason why the events happened the way they did. I hypothesized that the second ordinations were "practice" of sorts so the angel could make sure they had it down. Given the emphasis on the specific words given in the ordination (it gets its own section to itself with D&C 13 after all) I thought that was marginally plausible. But those words (unlike the sacramental prayer, for instance) aren't required in the ordinance so what would be the big deal with making sure JS and OC were doing it right? I guess all I can say is that the account in JSH just doesn't make sense. But I don't really know what that means. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, JarMan said:

As I prepared for last week's GD lesson I was puzzled by JSH 68-72 because 1) the angel ordains JS and OC to the priesthood, then 2) they baptize each other, then 3) they ordain each other to the priesthood. Why would they need to ordain each other after they had already been ordained by the angel? It's almost like the original story had no angel in it. And then in a subsequent edit the angel part was added. Except that the part where they ordained each other was mistakenly left in.  But even if this is the case the baptisms/ordinations seem out of order. Nobody in class was able to come up with a good reason why the events happened the way they did. I hypothesized that the second ordinations were "practice" of sorts so the angel could make sure they had it down. Given the emphasis on the specific words given in the ordination (it gets its own section to itself with D&C 13 after all) I thought that was marginally plausible. But those words (unlike the sacramental prayer, for instance) aren't required in the ordinance so what would be the big deal with making sure JS and OC were doing it right? I guess all I can say is that the account in JSH just doesn't make sense. But I don't really know what that means. 

I don't know if you caught my comments on the relationship between baptism and priesthood ordination, but that relationship helps make a bit of sense out of the JSH account (if you missed it see the last set of bullet points in the OP). Essentially, it appears that repentance and baptism were considered a necessary preparation or "preparatory redemption" for receiving the priesthood. This early doctrine found both in the BOM and Moses makes it fairly clear that JS and Oliver's baptism with a subsequent understanding that they now had priesthood authority is very likely to have occurred in 1829, likely with ordinations as described in JSH. The question, that you rightly point out, of whether the angel really was integral to the experience remains ambiguous. 

Edited February 23, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Tacenda]

On 2/22/2017 at 11:09 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

So, my biggest take away from all of this, which Dan Vogel and probably others have pointed out, is that Joseph Smith didn't understand the ministration of Peter, James, and John as the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood, at least not for the entirety of the 1830s! Instead, he believed the original reception of this higher priesthood authority happened when he and Oliver heard the voice of the Lord commanding them to ordain each other to the office of elder, and to ordain others, in 1829 while praying at the Whitmer's house.

Overview: My own understanding of the sources and evidence is that this command of the voice of the Lord for the reception of the priesthood is the most important aspect of general priesthood reception in the earliest understanding of priesthood (1829-1831). Then as an unbroken priesthood lineage and a clear distinction between a greater and lesser priesthood becomes doctrine in 1832 and later, the command by the voice of the Lord continues to be the most important factor in Joseph's understanding of his reception of the "High" Priesthood, later called the Melchizedek Priesthood, until at least 1838. In these years (1832ish-1838ish), it appears that Joseph claimed general Melchizedek priesthood authority through the revelatory command of God (and the power of the Holy Ghost, see OP), and he understood Peter, James, and John's visit as conferring the "keys of the kingdom," constituting and ordaining Joseph and Oliver apostles. After that period, it's possible that he began emphasizing the importance of Peter, James, and John in the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood while maintaining the doctrine of the importance of a revelatory command.

Nitty Gritty (details and evidence)

1829-1831 (before High Priesthood or the distinction between greater and lesser priesthood is made): To get this subject right we have to start with as close to an accurate estimation of Joseph's understanding of Priesthood reception in 1829 as possible. In the OP, I've shown many of the evidences for a revelatory command of God being the most salient aspect of priesthood reception. These included the descriptions of priesthood ordination found in JST Gen 14:29, Moses 6:67, and Alma 13:3 (see OP for full text). These are all the earliest texts dictated by JS on the subject, and they are all dependent on Hebrew 7, which makes a clear distinction between priests of the "Levitical Priesthood" or "order of Aaron" and the priest "after the order of Melchizedek," or Jesus Christ. It addresses the lineal component of priests from Aaron's descendency and contrasts that with Christ's priesthood, who came from a non-priesthood bearing tribe (verses 11-14). Then comes the kicker, where it explains the source of Christ's authority, which is the word of God, " Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec" (verses 17 and 21). So, Joseph's most significant biblical source on priesthood doesn't attribute priesthood "after the order of Melchizedek" to lineage, and neither do any of Joseph's earliest revelations/translations. They all match in claiming a revelatory command/edict/comission as the source of priesthood authority.

This interpretation is supported by the following evidences, originally pointed out in "Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives" by Dan Vogel:

• Lucy Mack Smith describes Joseph receiving authority to baptize, "One morning however they sat down to their usual work [Joseph and Oliver were translating in Third Nephi in the Book of Mormon] when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water and each of them be baptized[. T]hey immediately went down to the susquehanae river and obeyed the mandate given them through the Urim and Thummin[. As they were on their return to the house they overheard Samuel [Smith] in a secluded spot engaged in secret prayer [.] They had now received authority to baptize..." No angels or unbroken lineage of ordinations, just divine command.
• Jesus' verbal commission for Nephi to baptize in 3rd Nephi 11.
• David Whitmer said, “I never heard that an angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834, 5, or 6.”
• Franklin D. Richards wrote, “I enquired of David and John [Whitmer] who say that they do not have any knowledge of, neither do the records show, concerning Peter, James, and John’s coming to the prophet Joseph.”
• William McLellin, one of the original LDS 12 apostles, wrote, "In 1831 I heard Joseph tell his experience<many times> about angels visits, and about finding the plates, and their contents coming to light but I never heard one word of John the baptist, or of Peter, James,and John’s visit and ordination. <till> It was told some year<s> or two afterward <in ohio>.”

Like I mentioned in the OP, there is no reference to a lesser vs. greater priesthood in any of the earliest translations or revelation. There is a clear distinction between the authority to baptize and the authority to give the Holy Ghost in the Book of Mormon, but there is no hint that it is understood in an Aaronic vs. Melchizedek type fashion. Instead, all explicit references to priesthood order are to Melchizedek or to the "Son of God" (JST Gen 14, Moses 6, Alma 13), ideas that can be traced to Hebrews 7. My best guess is that this reflects Joseph's understanding of Priesthood as transformed after Christ, consistent with Hebrew 7. The old law and, by implication, the old priesthood are done away with, and so JS is focusing on priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, and it's not apparent that he is giving the priesthood after the order Aaron any thought at all as none of his 1829-1830 revelations or translations make any reference to it whatsoever.

Another evidence of this is their earliest understanding of the office of "elder." Today, it is a general office of the Melchizedek priesthood, but in the Book of Mormon and in 1830, it was one of the highest offices of church leadership and was equated with the 12 disciples/apostles. Evidences include:

• Moroni 3:1, "1 The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers—"
• Articles and Covenants (1830): The duty of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, and members of the church  of Christ:—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize and to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons... and the giving of the Holy Ghost..."

Instead of having a greater priesthood "elder" and lesser priesthood "priests, teacher, and deacon," it is apparently understood as one priesthood with a top leadership office of elder, with graduated authority and duties under that.

It's also important to keep in mind that Peter, James, and John, though they are not referenced as making a specific visit, do have a clear place in the doctrines of the ministration of angels and divine authority in 1829. D&C 7 reads, "7 And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of this ministry until I come." This 1829 revelation makes Peter, James, and John ministering angels who hold "keys," and this will become significant just a few years later.

I'll continue with the details and evidence surrounding how this original understanding was both held onto and transformed in later periods in a future post (two people liked the first post, so despite no one adding any commentary or pushback, I'm guessing people are appreciating this).

I wonder now, if people believe Joseph wasn't perfect, that could include that he made up stories. Maybe he thought they were okay because it could be understood in the same way Jesus told parables.

[CV75]

I think it might be a good exercise to review these points in terms of the different meanings of conferral of the priesthood and ordination of, or to an office of, the priesthood. Ordination can mean both entrance into an order of priesthood, or assignment to an office of priesthood. And priesthood is the power of God, and He manifests it in an organized way. He uses orders, offices and keys to do this, and gives them names to do that. That makes several permutations to explore.

For example, conferral by His own voice is followed by conferral through His agents (angels or legal administrators) as His kingdom is established on a mortal plane. I see in this the pattern of creating or organizing His objective spiritually before physically, as with the Creation and other endeavors predicted through prophecy or taught symbolically in temples. His personally placing Adam into an order of stewardship and marriage is followed by Adam teaching and giving the same thing to his posterity through the covenants of the united and patriarchal orders, and in addition -- currently -- through the offices in the "two grand heads," which are for convenience in administering the affairs in this dispensation of the fulnes of times. Angels are used to connect the dispensations after God has stepped in to get the ball (i.e. the stone cut out the mountain without hands -- with a voice) rolling.

[Benjamin Seeker]

I want to follow up my original posts and address the evolving relationship between the revelatory command to ordain each other JS and Oliver received in the Whitmer home and the visit of Peter, James, and John.

Following is a bullet point list of relevant documents and timeline:

• April 1829, D&C 7. This revelation about Peter, James, and John, that appears to make them ministering angels with the "power and keys of this ministry," which refers to the ministry to the "heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth." In other words, it's a pretty broad ministry, and these guys are pretty high in the hierarchy.
• March 1832, D&C 81. The revelation states that JS had received the "keys of the kingdom"
• Summer 1832, unfinished history. The introduction mentions the "reception of the holy priesthood by the ministering of angels" (an apparent reference to the lower priesthood), the "confirmation and reception of the high priesthood after the order of the son of living God" (no explicit mention of angels or apostles), and conferral of the "keys of the kingdom of God." This last part can be interpreted to have some kind of relationship to Peter, James, and John in light of the April 1829 revelation.
  • Both the reception of the high priesthood and conferral of the keys is listed in the same section begun with number "fourthly." There are at least two obvious interpretations. It could be that both of these things were considered part of the same event (which is unlikely when viewed in context of later documents), or these were considered two separate but related events. It should also be noted that Joseph Smith takes over writing the document himself exactly at the conferral of keys (see transcript: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1). This could indicate that the previous idea, the reception of the high priesthood, was complete, and that the conferral of keys was its own independent idea.
• March 1833, letter by Reverend Taggart. Taggart reports that Joseph Smith claimed to have "seen Jesus Christ and the Apostles and conversed with them..."
• March 1833, D&C 90. The revelation states that JS had been given the "keys of the kingdom."
• 1835, expanded version of D&C 27 published in the Doctrine and Covenants (called section 50 in the 1835 publication). The relevant passage reads, "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: 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"
  • D&C 27 was originally received in August 1830; however, while there are earlier versions than the 1835 publication, there is no known document predating the 1835 version with the new material found in the 1835 version of the revelation, which new material included the mention of Peter, James, and John's visit.
  • It should also be noted that the preceding section in the 1835 publication (section 49 in the 1835 version) is dated to July 1830 and contains a command that Oliver and and John Whitmer devote time to "confirming the church at Colesville." This piece of data is relevant to the dating of the Peter, James, and John visitation which occured "in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county and Colesville, Broom county, on the Susquehanna river." The only time Joseph and Oliver traveled this stretch was when they fled from Colesville in "early July 1830" according to Dan Vogel. I think it's probable that the expansion (or possible inclusion of hypothetically original material that had been omitted until 1835) of section 50 (D&C 27), which included the Peter, James, and John visit, was chosen for its chronological position following section 49 and the command to Oliver to be in Colesville in the summer of 1830.
• 1835, expanded version of an 1833 blessing to Oliver. " The expansion explains that Oliver was “ordained with [Joseph] by the hand of the angel in the bush, unto the lesser priesthood" and received "the holy priesthood under the hands of they <those> who had been held in reserve for a long season even those who received it under the hand of the Messiah while he should dwell in the flesh upon the earth, and should receive the blessings with him, even the Seer of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saith he, even Joseph of old, by his hand, even God.”
• 1838 official Joseph Smith History. The history mentions that John the Baptist was acting under the authority of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood. In addressing the reception of the Melchizedek priesthood, the text says that they hadn't yet received the Melchizedek priesthood as John the Baptist promised and so JS and Oliver were praying on the subject at the Whitmer home. The voice of the Lord came to them commanding them to ordain each other and ordain others, though that they should wait until everyone is gathered. There is no preceding or proceeding mention of a Peter, James, and John visit in the history.
  • The history also records Oliver Cowdery telling the freshly minted 12 apostles in Feb. 1835 that they had received their priesthood from "those who have the power and authority from an angel." This obviously doesn't sound like Peter, James, and John. Consistent with Joseph Smith History, it could be referring to the John the Baptist visit. I'm not sure where the history gets this quote from, meaning I'm not sure what earlier documents may have been used in writing this portion of the history. If someone wants to look up those sources, that could be very helpful in placing the wording of the quote in the most accurate context possible (i.e. 1838, 1835, or someplace in between?).
• September 1842, Letter from Joseph Smith (D&C 128). Joseph lists important events from the restoration, including the "voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fulness of times! And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county..."
• 1848, Letter from Hiram Page. Hiram states that "Peter, James and John” had come and bestowed the Holy Priesthood “before the 6th of April 1830.”
• 1881, Letter by Addison Everrett. Everrett recalled hearing Joseph tell Hyrum in 1844 about the Peter, James, and John visit. The details include fleeing Colesville and being ordained to the apostleship. Most scholars agree that this account best lines up with events in July 1830; however, because it is a later remembrance, some scholars discount it's reliability.

There is a bunch of data and some of it is fairly conflicting. In terms of the Peter, James, and John timeline, they clearly have an important role in Mormon doctrine holding keys and being ministering angels as early as we could ask for (1829). In 1832, it appears that the concept of JS receiving the "keys of the kingdom" surfaces. There is no mention of angelic visitors bestowing them, but the idea of Peter, James, and John holding "keys" is already in place as I've already noted. Joseph Smith has made the public claim that the apostles had visited him by 1833, though no details on content of that visit. In 1835 we get the expanded content of D&C 27 which explicitly states a visit of Peter, James, and John to "ordain you and confirm you apostles," and we also get Oliver's expanded blessing which has Peter, James and John conferring the higher priesthood.

Importantly, the combination of the 1832 history, 1838 history, and 1842 letter makes it clear that there JS conceived of two separate events, the voice of God in Father Whitmer's chamber and the conferral of keys and ordination by Peter, James, and John. The 1838 history is the only version that gives a date for the Whitmer home experience, and that is June 1829. The detailed accounts that give clues for the dating of the Peter, James and John agree on July 1830, and some believing historians like Richard Bushman have supported the later dating. 

I haven't really given a clean picture here, because that's just not going to happen. What is clear is that the revelatory command of God was important to priesthood reception from 1829 onward, and it remained important even when priesthood lineage and angelic ordination became important doctrines. A couple other evidences that supports this are Oliver's recollection of hearing the voice of Jesus Christ along with the John the Baptist visitation and Joseph not only including the voice of God in father Whitmer's chamber in his 1842 letter, but also using the phrase, "the voice of Peter, James, and John" (it's not just flowery language!).

[CV75]

Here is a sketch of what I was kind of thinking, a format for providing examples that show among other principles the line-upon-line development of establishing the kingdom on the earth. It might have been a lot for a young man whose frontal lobe wasn't yet fully developed (and then when it was, having to face nothing but trouble) to wrap his head around in "real time." And certainly anyone watching from the sidelines. "No man knows my history" sort of thing.

Confer Power by Voice (God only - Holy Ghost validation): Adam, heads of new dispensations

 

Confer Defined Scope of Power by Voice (God only)

Confer Defined Scope of Power by Hands (Angelic)

Confer Defined Scope of Power by Hands (Human)

 

Confer Authority (Keys) by Voice (God only - Holy Ghost validation): Adam's stewardship, naming animals; Joseph's pre-1830 "stewardship" of translation, baptism, revelation, etc.

Confer Authority (Keys) by Hand (Angelic)

Confer Authority (Keys) by Hand (Mortal)

 

Ordain to an Office (Angelic)

Ordain to an Office (Mortal)

 

Ordain to an Order by Voice (God only - Holy Ghost validation): Adam and Eve's marriage

Ordain to an Order (Angelic)

Ordain to an Order (Mortal)

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

...those who are ordained after can trace their priesthood to the original source, but those who first get it in a vacuum, receive it through a divine edict from God (Moses 6:67, JST Gen 14, 3 Ne. 11, the 1838 account of the reception of the Melchizedek priesthood, and the New Testament source Hebrew 7). Alma 13, which is the most in depth exploration of priesthood reception in the Book of Mormon, doesn't even hint at lineal priesthood. JST Gen 14, another important early doctrinal exposition on priesthood, doesn't hint at lineal succession either. I think this is purposeful as Hebrews 7 clearly contrasts Christ's non-lineal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek to lineal Levitical priesthood.

I think we have to be careful here. I'm far from convinced Jesus' command to Nephi in 3 Nephi 11:21-22 means there wasn't already priesthood. Clearly there was. Christ is setting the disciples apart as leaders but that doesn't mean there was a vacuum. Likewise I think we have to be careful with the JST of  Gen 14. Again it doesn't say there was a vacuum at the time of Melchizedek merely that verse 29 that it was "delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice." While one possible reading is this was an individualistic hearing God's voice but verse 30 suggests a separate ordination. Again paralleling Alma 13 in key ways (and of course it's revealed reasonably close in time frame to the Alma 13 translation) There's a lot of filling in of vague notions with the idea that nothing else is going on whereas we can't tell that from the texts.

I should also add that Moses 6, which was done around the time of Gen 14, has this weirdness with respect to priesthood in verse 7 where it comes out of almost nowhere. The way it's constructed makes it seem like the language of Adam is the priesthood, but I'm reasonably sure that's not what is intended. I'd love to know the textual history of this a bit better because it's confusing in its current state. On the other hand, as you note, the narrative of Enoch in this chapter starts with his hearing a voice (27). This suggests priesthood the way it's presented. Now Enoch's account of Adam's baptism has God doing it directly although the exact identity of the "Spirit of the Lord" is ambiguous although there are echoes of 1 Nephi 11 where he is "caught away" by the Spirit of the Lord as well. Yet one might say that narratively this is an angel even if not called that initially. (Compare with verse 14 when an angel comes down after the Spirit of the Lord)

With regards to linear transmission we have to distinguish between being given it directly by the Spirit or an angel from a birth based lineage system (such as the Levitical) and then being set apart by an other priesthood holder. From what I can tell elements of all of these are in the Book of Mormon.

 

 

[JarMan]

Benjamin, I'm not sure I understand your commentary on D&C 7. It is only John who is to be as a "ministering angel" since he will not die (just like the three Nephites). This section is essentially an addendum to John 21 and answers the long-standing question of John's fate. I don't see any connection with D&C 7 and the restoration of the priesthood. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

It is only John who is to be as a "ministering angel" since he will not die (just like the three Nephites). This section is essentially an addendum to John 21 and answers the long-standing question of John's fate. I don't see any connection with D&C 7 and the restoration of the priesthood. 

JarMan, I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. After John is made a ministering angel "for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth," Christ specifies that Peter will also have some ministering role when he says to Peter, "And I will make thee to minister for him and for thy brother James." This is probably a reference to Peter's leadership position among the three, and is likely an allusion to Matthew 20:

Quote

26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

This same allusion is made, and much more clearly, in the Alma 17.

Quote

18 Now Ammon being the chief among them, or rather he did administer unto them, and he departed from them, after having blessed them according to their several stations, having imparted the word of God unto them, or administered unto them before his departure; and thus they took their several journeys throughout the land.

Then in verse 25, Ammon becomes a "servant" as well. I believe these two examples, Peter and Ammon, reflect JS' knowledge and belief in Matthew 20:26-28 as a model for spiritual leadership.

Returning to our main subject, it appears that John will be a ministering angel until the second coming, and during this time Peter will be in charge of John and James (I should also add JS' 1838 history reflects a similar doctrine when John the Baptist declares his visit is under the direction of Peter, James, and John). I guess you're right that D&C 7 doesn't make Peter and James ministering angels, but it does associate them with and implies that Peter is given authority over at least one ministering angel, uses the term minister to describe what Peter will be doing, and gives the three of them general authority over "this ministry."

I find Christ's statement that Peter James and John will hold the " keys of this ministry" to be the most important link between D&C 7 and Priesthood restoration. The 1832 history, in describing the restoration of High Priesthood, mentions the conferral of the "keys of the kingdom" as does an 1832 and 1833 revelation. In 1835, when Peter, James, and John's visit is explained in depth, the revelation (D&C 27) tells JS that Peter, James, and John "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: unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom..."  Notice the parallel phrases "keys of this ministry" and "keys of your ministry" in D&C 7 and 27, and the invocation of the "keys of my kingdom" as well. I definitely see a relationship here, if only a doctrinal foundation in D&C 7 for many of the ideas eventually associated with Priesthood restoration narrative and doctrine.

 

[clarkgoble]

On 2/22/2017 at 11:09 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Instead, all explicit references to priesthood order are to Melchizedek or to the "Son of God"

This part I think is going a bit too far. It's true that "priesthood" is only discussed relative to "high priesthood" or "holy order" (they appear synonyms in use). But priests seem distinguished from high priesthood. 

I think we have to keep clear in our minds two separate questions. First how would Joseph have understood the text in a 19th century setting (assuming both a Protestant, especially evangelical methodist context and a loose European esoteria tradition of folk magic, masonry, and remnants of Renaissance thinking and neoplatonism) Second assuming some historicity to the text what it might mean in its own purported context. This latter one is more complicated of course given that most of the narratives take place centuries after the Lehites arrive with unknown evolution. We also know that the Lehite religion was unlike post-exilic Judaism in many key ways. There are strong suggestions that some of the Deuteronomist reforms were at best seen as dubious by the Lehites. I'd expect that the Priestly tradition in the Documentary Hypothesis would also not be part of the Lehite tradition. The probable lack of Levites among the Nephites also affects all this.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I guess you're right that D&C 7 doesn't make Peter and James ministering angels, but it does associate them with and implies that Peter is given authority over at least one ministering angel, uses the term minister to describe what Peter will be doing, and gives the three of them general authority over "this ministry."

I think this right. The theology of translation, the traditions of people walking the earth (already part of folk traditions at the time of Joseph Smith), and then the angelical ordination all seem separate. It's the emphasis on Peter, James and John as having a special place relative to keys and power already in April 1829 that seems significant though. That strongly suggests seeing their connection to priesthood restoration isn't that new and is arising already prior to the claim to restoration.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

This part I think is going a bit too far. It's true that "priesthood" is only discussed relative to "high priesthood" or "holy order" (they appear synonyms in use). But priests seem distinguished from high priesthood. 

I think we have to keep clear in our minds two separate questions. First how would Joseph have understood the text in a 19th century setting (assuming both a Protestant, especially evangelical methodist context and a loose European esoteria tradition of folk magic, masonry, and remnants of Renaissance thinking and neoplatonism) Second assuming some historicity to the text what it might mean in its own purported context. This latter one is more complicated of course given that most of the narratives take place centuries after the Lehites arrive with unknown evolution. We also know that the Lehite religion was unlike post-exilic Judaism in many key ways. There are strong suggestions that some of the Deuteronomist reforms were at best seen as dubious by the Lehites. I'd expect that the Priestly tradition in the Documentary Hypothesis would also not be part of the Lehite tradition. The probable lack of Levites among the Nephites also affects all this.

Clark, I simply meant that all explicit definitions of Priesthood in the earliest documents invoke Melchizedek or the Son of God. None refer to a priesthood of Aaron or Levitical Priesthood. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we have to be careful here. I'm far from convinced Jesus' command to Nephi in 3 Nephi 11:21-22 means there wasn't already priesthood. Clearly there was. Christ is setting the disciples apart as leaders but that doesn't mean there was a vacuum.

Good point. However, it's pretty clear we are getting a fresh start, some kind of renewal of authority, in 3 Nephi.

Quote

Likewise I think we have to be careful with the JST of  Gen 14. Again it doesn't say there was a vacuum at the time of Melchizedek merely that verse 29 that it was "delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice." While one possible reading is this was an individualistic hearing God's voice but verse 30 suggests a separate ordination. Again paralleling Alma 13 in key ways (and of course it's revealed reasonably close in time frame to the Alma 13 translation) There's a lot of filling in of vague notions with the idea that nothing else is going on whereas we can't tell that from the texts.

I think JST Gen 14 should be interpreted as a individualistic call, and I agree that there is no reason to rule out some kind of ordination by someone who has authority, as those ordinations can be found in the BOM. As a quick aside, I think these significant early texts on Priesthood (JST Gen 14 and Alma 13) are perhaps purposefully vague on ordination and the source of ordination owing to the claims to Priesthood JS was making without claiming ordination by someone who already had it (i.e. John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John), at least not at this early period.

Quote

I should also add that Moses 6, which was done around the time of Gen 14, has this weirdness with respect to priesthood in verse 7 where it comes out of almost nowhere. The way it's constructed makes it seem like the language of Adam is the priesthood, but I'm reasonably sure that's not what is intended. I'd love to know the textual history of this a bit better because it's confusing in its current state.

Awesome subject to bring up! I agree that priesthood is apparently referencing the pure language here. I see this as consistent with JS's teachings on Priesthood and language. For example, he gives instructions to pray to receive an answer by using God's name in the pure language, Ahman. This type of thinking is developed more when he uses a Hebrew phrase and other key phrases as part of the priesthood and part of prayer in the Nauvoo endowment. Early evidence comes from Moses, where Enoch is given a language so powerful he can work miracles. All of these examples link language to power. JS' fascination with Egyptian and Hebrew are related to the pure language (we can find sources for this claim if needed), and the GAEL seems to be related to this effort. The first symbols of the GAEL were first uses by Phelps in illustrating JS' unpublished revelation on the pure language (definitions for Ahman, Son Ahman, etc.), and I'm not entirely convinced that Phelps was the source of matching these symbols to the pure language given JS's apparent interest in restoring the pure language evidenced both in Moses and the unpublished revelation itself.

Quote

On the other hand, as you note, the narrative of Enoch in this chapter starts with his hearing a voice (27). This suggests priesthood the way it's presented. Now Enoch's account of Adam's baptism has God doing it directly although the exact identity of the "Spirit of the Lord" is ambiguous although there are echoes of 1 Nephi 11 where he is "caught away" by the Spirit of the Lord as well. Yet one might say that narratively this is an angel even if not called that initially. (Compare with verse 14 when an angel comes down after the Spirit of the Lord)

With regards to linear transmission we have to distinguish between being given it directly by the Spirit or an angel from a birth based lineage system (such as the Levitical) and then being set apart by an other priesthood holder. From what I can tell elements of all of these are in the Book of Mormon.

I agree that the priesthood transmission through the spirit and ordination by someone who has authority is present in the BOM. I know of no references to priesthood through descendency in the BOM. What are you thinking of there?

Edited February 24, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Clark, I simply meant that all explicit definitions of Priesthood in the earliest documents invoke Melchizedek or the Son of God. None refer to a priesthood of Aaron or Levitical Priesthood. 

Well I agree about Aaron or Levitical. The structural separation of the aaronic or levitical priesthood seems late. Further even in contemporary theology there's really not a separation of the two priesthoods. It's more two orders especially associated with Kirtland theology. So I fully agree that it's very likely Joseph wouldn't have associated the ordination of John (here going by the faithful view rather than Vogel's) with the Aaronic Priesthood. The question is whether he'd have associated it as the ordination to an office rather than priesthood - which is one of the key distinctions some make.

I'm not sure I agree about Melchizedek. Alma 4:20 is before Alma 13 and just talks of "high priesthood of the holy order of God." Neither the son or Melchizedek are mentioned. But perhaps that's cutting narrower than you like. However it's frequently mentioned as such.

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good point. However, it's pretty clear we are getting a fresh start, some kind of renewal of authority, in 3 Nephi.

Oh I agree that's possible. Just that I think that particularly for Vogel this is significant since they've been explicitly set apart just a few chapters earlier. I was surprised that when he brings up 3 Nephi he says it's purely verbal. But it could also and perhaps should be seen as just putting Jesus' stamp on some people to do what they'd already done to get rid of the disagreements which is what the chapter emphasizes. Put an other way Vogel's point is really made here because it's not done in a vacuum.

Quote

As a quick aside, I think these significant early texts on Priesthood (JST Gen 14 and Alma 13) are perhaps purposefully vague on ordination and the source of ordination owing to the claims to Priesthood JS was making without claiming ordination by someone who already had it (i.e. John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John), at least not at this early period.

I've been reading some more in the Book of Mormon on this and I'm coming around to thinking it's actually not vague who ordains whom. 2 Nephi 6:2 talks about Jacob being "ordained after the manner of his holy order and having been consecrated by my brother Nephi." Now we can distinguish between ordination and consecration. Indeed structurally in the text my sense is ordination refers to some sort of initiatory rite tied to Mikveh cleansing by water but that consecration refers to what we'd call being put in an office. So I'm coming around to thinking the distinction between priesthood and office is actually in the text structurally.  (See my comments over at T&S for more on that - I'll not bore everyone here on the details)

Quote

Awesome subject to bring up! I agree that priesthood is apparently referencing the pure language here. I see this as consistent with JS's teachings on Priesthood and language. For example, he gives instructions to pray to receive an answer by using God's name in the pure language, Ahman. This type of thinking is developed more when he uses a Hebrew phrase and other key phrases as part of the priesthood and part of prayer in the Nauvoo endowment. Early evidence comes from Moses, where Enoch is given a language so powerful he can work miracles. All of these examples link language to power. JS' fascination with Egyptian and Hebrew are related to the pure language (we can find sources for this claim if needed), and the GAEL seems to be related to this effort. The first symbols of the GAEL were first uses by Phelps in illustrating JS' unpublished revelation on the pure language (definitions for Ahman, Son Ahman, etc.), and I'm not entirely convinced that Phelps was the source of matching these symbols to the pure language given JS's apparent interest in restoring the pure language evidenced both in Moses and the unpublished revelation itself.

Well that's not actually what I was thinking of. To me it was an oddity suggesting a textual issue. But now that you do bring that up that's interesting especially given the masonic background. (As others have established Joseph likely knew the basics of masonry even if he didn't really get deep into it until Nauvoo) The folk traditions of the perfect language were around well before then. (As an aside I find Umberto Eco's The Search for the Perfect Language a must read history of this even if he mainly focuses in on big names rather than the looser folk tradition) And of course the tradition of the Tower of Babel is wrapped all up in this. Both the mythic history one finds in Europe and the middle east but also even naturalistic explanations for the Brother of Jared. (It makes zero sense to see God as changing everyone's language at once, but a view where there were priestly writings in a language makes more sense and actually parallels narratively to what happened to the Muelikites.) 

This then of course ties everything to the perceptions of the Book of Abraham where there is evidence Joseph thought he had some key for translation separate from what I suspect was the source for the actual translation. The Alphabet and Grammar is then tied to that rather than what was really going on. They were trying to rediscover some priestly cipher. Again this parallels masonic traditions as well where ciphers were important. Brigham Young uses them both to keep his correspondence to Kane secret but also potentially as partial basis for the Deseret Alphabet -- Ardis did a nice overview on this a few years back although she doesn't delve into the masonic stuff too deeply. I should add I've not read a terribly convincing connection between the deseret alphabet and masonry but I've heard the claim enough I figured I'd mention it.

The idea of new or secret names is prominent in the endowment but also even in the text of the Book of Mormon. Again it has a rich history in esoteric folk traditions & kabbalism (both the real tradition and the syncretic form that tended to be what ended up in folk traditions and masonry) not to mention the hermetic tradition as well. 

Quote

I agree that the priesthood transmission through the spirit and ordination by someone who has authority is present in the BOM. I know of no references to priesthood through descendency in the BOM. What are you thinking of there?

I was more thinking of what Brant Gardner and similar apologists note about the fact the priestlly class all seem to be of the same lineage. (So Alma → Alma → Sons of Alma) So in the OT you have ordinations and setting apart with rituals to act as a priest but the right is by lineage. In the Book of Mormon you have this tendency to have familial priesthood lines and leadership so the ordinations may be more formalized ala Levitical priesthood.

[Benjamin Seeker]

50 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure I agree about Melchizedek. Alma 4:20 is before Alma 13 and just talks of "high priesthood of the holy order of God." Neither the son or Melchizedek are mentioned. But perhaps that's cutting narrower than you like. However it's frequently mentioned as such.

I'm not ruling those out. I really loved finding all of those slightly under the radar references (it was those more general "order" references that, in part, clued me into Adam's ordination in Moses).

[Benjamin Seeker]

28 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Oh I agree that's possible. Just that I think that particularly for Vogel this is significant since they've been explicitly set apart just a few chapters earlier. I was surprised that when he brings up 3 Nephi he says it's purely verbal. But it could also and perhaps should be seen as just putting Jesus' stamp on some people to do what they'd already done to get rid of the disagreements which is what the chapter emphasizes. Put an other way Vogel's point is really made here because it's not done in a vacuum.

I've been reading some more in the Book of Mormon on this and I'm coming around to thinking it's actually not vague who ordains whom.

I personally approach these texts as doctrinal expositions, so when Alma 13 and JST Gen 14, in depth texts on priesthood, are pretty ambiguous about ordination, that seems significant. 3 Nephi 11's dearth of reference to ordination makes me think some doctrinal understanding of transfer of divine authority is driving the narrative instead of other possibilities, such as a lazy, undetailed account or just a verbal confirmation of authority with no real transfer of authority. In fact, I see the Book of Mormon, in many places, as a manual of how to start a church, 3 Nephi being one of the key areas that addresses the subject, so I really buy into some kind of renewal or restart happening in 3 Nephi 11 and onward. This is also evidenced by the fact that the disciples themselves are baptized in 3 Nephi 19.

Quote

Well that's not actually what I was thinking of. To me it was an oddity suggesting a textual issue.

I realized you were saying that some funny textual issue was causing a problematic reading there, so I just wanted to offer examples that contextualize the reading and make it not problematic (sorry, for not being clearer about that).

Quote

I was more thinking of what Brant Gardner and similar apologists note about the fact the priestlly class all seem to be of the same lineage. (So Alma → Alma → Sons of Alma) So in the OT you have ordinations and setting apart with rituals to act as a priest but the right is by lineage. In the Book of Mormon you have this tendency to have familial priesthood lines and leadership so the ordinations may be more formalized ala Levitical priesthood.

Those are good examples that I hadn't thought of. So, the Book of Mormon does have examples of familial priesthood, even if it's never explained in a doctrinal fashion. Cool!

Edited February 24, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker