Why were seventies done away with?

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King

This is the key phrase that I think undermines the reading you're giving it. That is Joseph thought he was going to be doing something further with Hyrum taking over some of his previous roles. I don't think this implies Hyrum was above Joseph Smith. Further D&C 124 still has Joseph as the President as you noted. As I understand it historians are still debating all this somewhat. The key bit is the crowning which is the fulfillment of what Hyrum is over. So Joseph says, "I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King." Joseph is now King and Hyrum is prophet.

The succession crisis ended up being over who had these keys related to the higher ordinances of the temple. Although the public didn't really understand them. Brigham had them while those opposed to Brigham didn't. But of course there's no reason why the offices couldn't be separated. I'm not sure it follows that the Patriarch ought have those powers. But of course (and this is something Lost Legacy doesn't get into as much) the various apostate movements in the early 20th century claimed a kind of independence because they'd had these other ordinances. The argument against this was always what mentioned that only one person has the keys over these. I'd say more but all my notes are at home and this isn't something I've studied in quite a while.

Edited April 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Quote

I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King

This is the key phrase that I think undermines the reading you're giving it. That is Joseph thought he was going to be doing something further with Hyrum taking over some of his previous roles. I don't think this implies Hyrum was above Joseph Smith. Further D&C 124 still has Joseph as the President as you noted. As I understand it historians are still debating all this somewhat. The key bit is the crowning which is the fulfillment of what Hyrum is over. So Joseph says, "I will advance from prophet to priest & then to King." Joseph is now King and Hyrum is prophet.

The succession crisis ended up being over who had these keys related to the higher ordinances of the temple. Although the public didn't really understand them. Brigham had them while those opposed to Brigham didn't. But of course there's no reason why the offices couldn't be separated. I'm not sure it follows that the Patriarch ought have those powers. But of course (and this is something Lost Legacy doesn't get into as much) the various apostate movements in the early 20th century claimed a kind of independence because they'd had these other ordinances. The argument against this was always what mentioned that only one person has the keys over these. I'd say more but all my notes are at home and this isn't something I've studied in quite a while.

I disagree (sort of).
D&C 124 is clear that first in the Church priesthood is the Patriarch, then the President/Prophet.
And the real key phrase is "He stated that Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birth-right & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority".

So while you are right that Joseph moved on as King and wanted Hyrum as prophet, the difference is in presiding over the priesthood on earth vs leading the Church.
Hyrum by birthright was to lead the Church.  The Patriarch should be the head of the Church (D&C 124:124).  But the Church isn't everything.
But Joseph still held more priesthood.

I do however agree 100% with you that the succession crisis was directly related to the temple ordinances.
In fact, that is why Brigham said  “I do not care who leads the church, even though it were Ann Lee, but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it. I have the keys and the means of obtaining the mind of God on the subject."
(Means of obtaining the mind of God having direct reference to Temple ordinances.)

It is also why Brigham acknowledged Joseph Smith III's right to lead the Church had he stayed faithful.
But he knew that priesthood keys obtained through temple ordinances were far above the leader of the Church.
 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

This is fascinating, because it directly contradicts Elder Roberts'/Elder Kimball's letters in 1926 arguing against shunting the seventies quorums to the stake level. Elder Dilworth S. Young knows what he's talking about, too, though. 

If President Taylor made this change in the late 1870s, then why were the presidents of the seventies arguing against it in the 1920s?

Interesting.

I'm thinking it might have something to to with the earlier seventies still designated and functioning at the general Church level, but organizing and meeting in quorums within stake boundaries as an administrative convenience.

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 124 is clear that first in the Church priesthood is the Patriarch, then the President/Prophet.
And the real key phrase is "He stated that Hyrum held the office of prophet to the church by birth-right & he was going to have a reformation and the saints must regard Hyrum for he has authority".

So while you are right that Joseph moved on as King and wanted Hyrum as prophet, the difference is in presiding over the priesthood on earth vs leading the Church.

As I mentioned, it appears to me that there's not necessarily historic agreement on these points. Indeed there was little historic knowledge on them until Ehat's thesis back in I think the 90's. (Don't have my copy handy here at work) Of course not everyone agrees with Ehat and his work is pretty dated at this point. My perhaps flawed memory is that Jonathon Stapley disagreed with many of the main models of what was going on. Sam Brown has written a little on this as well making a lot of use of the various Egyptian papers related to the papyri, attempts at translating it and then our English text of the Book of Abraham. I don't want to say much as I just don't remember the details of their articles too well. My memory is that this "moving up" was analogous to certain aspects of the platonic chain of bean including the tendency of platonism in late antiquity and its rebirth in the renaissance to be tied with planets. So as Hyrum takes Joseph's place, Joseph moves up in the heirarchy. So the key issue is how Joseph and Hyrum are related in terms of power and authority.

Hyrum is presiding in some sense but is still under Joseph. Part of the problem is that much of this wasn't fully made clear so historians are often making circumstantial arguments. The main issue is the notion of adoption. Here's Sam Brown's paper and J. Stapley's.

Going by my fuzzy memory (I don't have time to reread the papers right now) I think part of the problem is that the adoption theology hadn't been fully revealed. I think it clear that Joseph saw the patriarchal priesthood as tied to the temple ordinances and in particular adoption. Further he saw this patriarch to the church as tied to this. But honestly the theology in some ways doesn't make a lot of sense as it confuses head of a dispensation with the problem of heads of individual families. The problem (which I can't recall if Stapley gets into) is that there's this family sealing and then the role of being a king and priest to God with the endowment being a kind of symbolic kingship coronation tied to classic ideas of the king being simultaneously a king on earth and heaven in the ancient near east.

So the problem ultimately is this issue of the holy order and its relation to the patriarchal priesthood. In one sense one can read it as Hyrum as Patriarch as having that power. That's how you're reading it I take it. However in Nauvoo and later most of those in the inner circle who had their higher ordinances saw the fulness of the priesthood as tied to this kingship and somewhat separate from the patriarchal order. As I said I find the texts ambiguous. I think Joseph just didn't finish restoring all this, which is partially why it went to Brigham after Hyrum and Joseph's death. Brigham formalized the various rites but didn't ultimately change the structures beyond doing adoptions in a way Joseph didn't. (My personal guess is that Joseph saw polygamy, especially dynastic ones which often are the most controversial, as how to resolve this and didn't fully understand the idea of adoption) The other problem is that of course the period around Joseph's death and the months before had many of the key leadership on travel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 4/10/2017 at 0:33 PM, CV75 said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-history-of-the-latter-day-seventy?lang=eng

"This announcement was in keeping with President Brigham Young’s statement more than 138 years earlier: “The Seventies are not called to be a local body, but are ordained … to travel, ordain local officers, and build up and set in order the whole Kingdom of God upon the earth, wherever it is necessary.” "

I'd say that meeting changing needs is a good thing.

Some twenty years ago, in our ward in Olympia, Washington, we ran into an oddity, in the form of a man who came to visit with our bishop for assistance, who claimed to be a "traveling seventy".  He said he had been called to travel, apparently as the Spirit directed him, and minister to people on the fringes of society.  He was apparently living as a homeless person, staying in shelters, whatever, and trying to be of spiritual help to those he encountered.  If I recall correctly, the bishop was somewhat mystified by this, and disbelieving that the man's mission was given to him by the Church, but nevertheless decided to use fast offering funds to give him some financial assistance.  The man thanked the bishop and left, never to show up again.

Personally, I think the man's mission was self-called.

Or perhaps he was one of the Three Nephites.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Stargazer

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Some twenty years ago, in our ward in Olympia, Washington, we ran into an oddity, in the form of a man who came to visit with our bishop for assistance, who claimed to be a "traveling seventy".  He said he had been called to travel, apparently as the Spirit directed him, and minister to people on the fringes of society.  He was apparently living as a homeless person, staying in shelters, whatever, and trying to be of spiritual help to those he encountered.  If I recall correctly, the bishop was somewhat mystified by this, and disbelieving that the man's mission was given to him by the Church, but nevertheless decided to use fast offering funds to give him some financial assistance.  The man thanked the bishop and left, never to show up again.

Personally, I think the man's mission was self-called.

Or perhaps he was one of the Three Nephites.

Did the bishop hand the seventy a twenty?

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Did the bishop hand the seventy a twenty?

Ha ha!

I don't know, but I suspect the assistance was not in cash.  Unless the bishop handed him money from his own wallet. 

[Avatar4321]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:30 AM, stemelbow said:

Making exceptions to scripture is what the Church has been all about since it's inception. 

cfr please

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

Quote

Making exceptions to scripture is what the Church has been all about since it's inception.

cfr please

A list of practices of the Church that have contradicted previous scripture?

Eliminating the scriptural priesthood office of seventy (and replacing it with a Church calling given to High Priests) would be one of the most obvious.
 

[rongo]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A list of practices of the Church that have contradicted previous scripture?

Eliminating the scriptural priesthood office of seventy (and replacing it with a Church calling given to High Priests) would be one of the most obvious.

Forgive my ignorance, but are members of the quorums of the seventy today not ordained seventies? Are they ordained high priests?

That would be new to me. I have always assumed that modern Q70 members hold the priesthood office of seventy.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

A list of practices of the Church that have contradicted previous scripture?

Eliminating the scriptural priesthood office of seventy (and replacing it with a Church calling given to High Priests) would be one of the most obvious.
 

Brigham Young's granting of divorce and remarriage (for reasons other than adultery) would be another one.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

On 4/11/2017 at 11:15 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'm using rural more as opposed to urban = large cities. Utah even when I moved here had a definite rural feel. 

Even SLC feels pretty rural to me.

[Avatar4321]

is there any correlation between the change in the seventy and our baptism rate?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Brigham Young's granting of divorce and remarriage (for reasons other than adultery) would be another one.

True, although Brigham stated that those divorces were basically worthless.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Forgive my ignorance, but are members of the quorums of the seventy today not ordained seventies? Are they ordained high priests?

That would be new to me. I have always assumed that modern Q70 members hold the priesthood office of seventy.

Maybe I spoke too soon.
I have researched and apparently Seventies are still ordained, not just called.

• Boyd K. Packer
  The priesthood is greater than any of its offices. When someone first receives the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood, it is conferred upon them by the laying on of hands. After the priesthood has been conferred upon him, he is ordained to an office in the priesthood. All offices derive their authority from the priesthood. ("What Every Elder Should Know--and Every Sister as Well: A Primer on Principles of Priesthood Government," Ensign, Feb. 1993, p.8 )
• Bruce R. McConkie
  Those upon whom the Melchizedek Priesthood is conferred receive that priesthood in its entirety. They are then ordained to offices in the priesthood and assume thus the responsibility to perform the particular ministerial service inherent in their designated office. (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.353)

I suppose technically all who have the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred hold ALL of the priesthood of that order.  They are then just ordained to offices within that priesthood.
So if you are ordained an Elder or ordained a High Priest does it really make much difference if you are ordained a Seventy or called to serve as a Seventy?  Not really, but apparently they are still ordained and hold the office of Seventy even after being released.
 

• Consistent with their ordination as Seventies, they become officers of the Church with a specific and definite tie to a quorum. While there will be only limited opportunities for them to come together in quorum meetings, the Presidents of the Seventy will communicate with them, will instruct them, receive reports, and do other things of that kind. They will now have a sense of belonging that they have not experienced up to this time. As Seventies they are called to preach the gospel and to be especial witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ as set forth in the revelations. Though all Seventies have equal scriptural authority, members of the First and Second Quorums are designated General Authorities, while members of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth are designated Area Authorities.

  Although the ordination to the office of Seventy is without term, a Seventy is called to serve in a quorum for a designated period of years. At the conclusion of this service, he will return to activity in his respective ward and stake and will meet with his high priests group. - President Gordon B. Hinckley ("May We Be Faithful and True," Ensign, May 1997, pp. 5-6)

Interestingly, this makes abundantly clear that Seventies do outrank High Priests (a debate ongoing since the days of Joseph).

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I spoke too soon.
I have researched and apparently Seventies are still ordained, not just called.

Whew!

Interestingly, this makes abundantly clear that Seventies do outrank High Priests (a debate ongoing since the days of Joseph).

One of the things B.H. Roberts was upset about was that he was instructed not to include Brigham Young's revelation and instruction in the Nauvoo temple regarding Seventies outranking High Priests. As you say, this was a controversial issue, and it was settled by Brigham Young, but the FP and Q12 specifically instructed him not to include that in DHC. He replied that he acknowledged and respected their authority to command that, and that he would honor that, but that he wanted to let them know that he disagreed with the decision and thought it was wrong.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

Whew!

Yeah, sometimes I jump the gun a bit.
I had been given the impression that Seventies had become a calling, like Elders Quorum President, or Temple President, or First Counselor in the First Presidency.

Another interesting historical tidbit is that Seventies were also considered to hold the apostleship in the early days of the Church.  There are references in scripture and Church history to Apostles being Elders, Seventies, and High Priests.  The Apostleship as Priesthood office is another fascinating topic.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Another interesting historical tidbit is that Seventies were also considered to hold the apostleship in the early days of the Church.  There are references in scripture and Church history to Apostles being Elders, Seventies, and High Priests.  The Apostleship as Priesthood office is another fascinating topic.

I think that's why Roberts, Kimball, Junius Wells, and the other presidents of the Seventy didn't want the office and the quorums to be swallowed up by the other quorums. It was really important to them that the independent quorums of the 70 (under the direction of the 1Q70 and the seven presidents) be able to do the work they were called to do. Roberts in particular was upset with a policy move remanding a revealed office and quorum so that it could be blandly managed at the stake level. 

[clarkgoble]

More or less offices are just tied to keys. And of course keys can be administered independently. So if I as a district leader on my mission have permission from the Mission President I can do an interview and approve someone for baptism. Elder Oaks did a talk on this a few years back. (Don't have time to look up the link - his focus was women and the priesthood) It's interesting since of course the idea of just being given priesthood then raises the question of what happens in the temple. Of course women temple workers are operating under the priesthood just as Relief Society Presidents are. But if that's true then what is the priesthood? Something Oaks didn't end up clarifying too much.

There's also the issue of the Melchezedek Priesthood, the Patriarchal Priesthood, and the holy order that were a bit confusing in the last days of Nauvoo. Historians have worked out some of the issues but a lot of confusion remains. Plus, I just suspect it hadn't all been revealed yet. It's also not quite clear what practical difference such things make. (My guess is not much)

Edited April 14, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

More or less offices are just tied to keys. And of course keys can be administered independently. So if I as a district leader on my mission have permission from the Mission President I can do an interview and approve someone for baptism. Elder Oaks did a talk on this a few years back. (Don't have time to look up the link - his focus was women and the priesthood) It's interesting since of course the idea of just being given priesthood then raises the question of what happens in the temple. Of course women temple workers are operating under the priesthood just as Relief Society Presidents are. But if that's true then what is the priesthood? Something Oaks didn't end up clarifying too much.

There's also the issue of the Melchezedek Priesthood, the Patriarchal Priesthood, and the holy order that were a bit confusing in the last days of Nauvoo. Historians have worked out some of the issues but a lot of confusion remains. Plus, I just suspect it hadn't all been revealed yet. It's also not quite clear what practical difference such things make. (My guess is not much)

This thread http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68655-1829-1830-doctrine-of-priesthood-reception/#comment-1209698610 is far more interesting than my two links (cents) I’m going to share, but for what it’s worth:

Posted February 23

Posted February 23

[Duncan]

On 4/13/2017 at 3:18 PM, rongo said:

Forgive my ignorance, but are members of the quorums of the seventy today not ordained seventies? Are they ordained high priests?

That would be new to me. I have always assumed that modern Q70 members hold the priesthood office of seventy.

They are ordained Seventies. Interestingly enough the 1st Council of Seventy were ordained Seventies but not High Priests. That changed in 1961. I know Elder Rex Pinegar became a member of the 1st Council of the Seventy in the early '70 but he hadn't been a High Priest but when he was switched to the 1st Quorum of the Seventy he was already a Seventy and now had to be ordained a High Priest

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

This thread http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68655-1829-1830-doctrine-of-priesthood-reception/#comment-1209698610 is far more interesting than my two links (cents) I’m going to share, but for what it’s worth:

Posted February 23  Posted February 23

Yes I think I participated in that but I don't think the question I raised was answered (nor do I think that there is an answer yet)

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

They are ordained Seventies. Interestingly enough the 1st Council of Seventy were ordained Seventies but not High Priests. That changed in 1961. I know Elder Rex Pinegar became a member of the 1st Council of the Seventy in the early '70 but he hadn't been a High Priest but when he was switched to the 1st Quorum of the Seventy he was already a Seventy and now had to be ordained a High Priest

It's stories like this that cause the confusion,

If he was already ordained a Seventy why would he need to be ordained a High Priest (a lesser office)?

That would be like ordaining a priest to be a teacher or deacon.

[Duncan]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's stories like this that cause the confusion,

If he was already ordained a Seventy why would he need to be ordained a High Priest (a lesser office)?

That would be like ordaining a priest to be a teacher or deacon.

I think it hearkened back to an earlier day, B.H. Roberts and J. Golden Kimball they couldn't ordain a man to be a High Priest and set him apart to be a Stake President, because I think the thinking was if you aren't a High Priest then you can't give what you don't have, so I guess in the '70's they just eliminated all that and ordained all the GA's Seventies and in Elder PInegar's case a High Priest

[CV75]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes I think I participated in that but I don't think the question I raised was answered (nor do I think that there is an answer yet)

What is the question you raised -- evidently i misinterpreted it.