1829-1830 Doctrine of Priesthood Reception

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

Right and I'm probably privileging the more narrative component more as I think it's there that the text has largely been neglected. Again that's less of an issue for the faithful view than the forgery model.

[Benjamin Seeker]

On 2/22/2017 at 1:09 PM, 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.

I just wanted to point out that I had this wrong. The 1835 version of Oliver Cowdery's blessing published in D&C (the relevant portion quoted in my third major post in this thread), connects the conferral of the Melchizedek priesthood to the visitation of Peter, James, and John. There isn't really any wiggle room as the text says it rather bluntly. So, by 1835 Joseph is publishing that the Melchizedek priesthood, not just the keys of the kingdom or ministry, came via Peter, James, and John. That makes the omission of their visitation in the JS 1838 History even more strange. The most obvious answer I can think of is that the 1838 History is some kind of compromise between earlier claims and the 1835 claims to placate the push back JS had possibly received from guys like David Whitmer and others who were wondering where the angelic ordination claims were coming from. Anyone have any other ideas?

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right and I'm probably privileging the more narrative component more as I think it's there that the text has largely been neglected. Again that's less of an issue for the faithful view than the forgery model.

I'm glad you've been bringing up the narrative portions, as they are easily overlooked. I know this isn't how you think of it, but my approach to the text is that all of these examples help create a clearer picture of JS' understanding of divine authority at the time the text was dictated.