Jump to content

Joseph Smith's Kingly Birthright (update to an old thread)


Recommended Posts

I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright.
8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--
9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God--
10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. 
An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron.

However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (EDIT: Robert points out later in this thread that the absence of the Church Patriarch can be seen as a result of the homosexual status of the second to last patriarch, and that the position may still be filled at a future point. Radio Free Mormon, and others I'm sure, have made other arguments, but this point is pretty peripheral to the discussion).

The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."

In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to post
8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright.
8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--
9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God--
10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. 
An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron.

However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."

In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.

I'll have to go with smac on this one. In addition, "ye" (verse 11) is plural. And the interpretation is consistent with Abraham 2;11.

Edited by CV75
  • Like 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I started a thread earlier this year addressing some verses in D&C 86 on Joseph Smith and lineal priesthood. I recently followed up on it and put the puzzle pieces together.

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright.
8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--
9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God--
10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. 
An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron.

However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The position of Patriarch to the church is only half of the story. D&C 113 states, "What is the rod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of Ephraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much power." It is common in Mormon thought to believe these verses apply to Joseph Smith, and that seems to be a correct assumption. The line of Jesse refers to the kingly line of David, and significantly, JS prophesied "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage," which apparently referred to one of JS' offspring. He made this clear when he prophesied that his unborn son, David, would be a "church president and king over Israel."

In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, JS himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill JS' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.

Ben,

A couple quick thoughts.  If you haven't read the JSP historical introduction to D&C 86, its worth a read, apparently Joseph was working on the bible translation project and may have been working on Matthew 13 as well as Jeremiah passages this same day with Rigdon. 

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-6-december-1832-dc-86/1#historical-intro

Also on the King designation, I believe this has a connection to Masonic tradition as well, but I can't remember where I read about this in the past, if it comes to me, I'll submit another reply, but I think there is something to this title that may have also been influenced from Masonry.  

  • Like 1
Link to post

Ehat used to be the standard on this with his stuff on patriarchal priesthood. Since then Sam Brown and Jonathan Stapley's work has definitely superseded it. 

I'd start here "Early Mormon Adoption Theology" "The Early Mormon Chain of Belonging" "Female Ritual Healing in Mormonism" "Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism" "The Cosmological Priesthood"

My guess is though that there's still lots to figure out here. Just as Ehat's thesis wasn't the last word on the topic, and his hypothesis has been heavily revised, I suspect Jonathan and Sam's will see revision in the future.

One important thing to consider is that a doctrine that's fairly obvious to us (adoption) was pretty unclear or not considered by Joseph Smith. There's a strong case to be made that many of his plural marriages - especially those to prominent daughters or polyandrous sealings were his attempting to deal with this patriarchal priesthood theology prior to adoption becoming a major doctrine.

Edited by clarkgoble
Forum weirdly turned link into image
  • Like 2
Link to post

Blood of Israel?  It is possible that everyone on earth is literally of the "blood of Israel".

Quote

 

But we are all special, which means none of us are. If you’re vaguely of European extraction, you are also the fruits of Charlemagne’s prodigious loins. A fecund ruler, he sired at least 18 children by motley wives and concubines, including Charles the Younger, Pippin the Hunchback, Drogo of Metz, Hruodrud, Ruodhaid, and not forgetting Hugh.

This is merely a numbers game. You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, and so on. But this ancestral expansion is not borne back ceaselessly into the past. If it were, your family tree when Charlemagne was Le Grand Fromage would harbour more than a billion ancestors – more people than were alive then. What this means is that pedigrees begin to fold in on themselves a few generations back, and become less arboreal, and more web-like. In 2013, geneticists Peter Ralph and Graham Coop showed that all Europeans are descended from exactly the same people. Basically, everyone alive in the ninth century who left descendants is the ancestor of every living European today, including Charlemagne, Drogo, Pippin and Hugh. Quel dommage.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

So Charlemagne lived about 1200 years ago- so within 1200 years that one individual had that many descendants

Jacob, who became named Israel, lived about 4 THOUSAND years ago and had 12 sons.

So one could multiply the "Charlemagne Effect" by 12 for all 12 sons multiply THAT number by 3 roughly accounting for the fact that Israel lived 3 thousand years before Charlemagne (rough numbers, obviously)  http://biblehub.com/timeline/

The mere fact that most genetic lines die out while others persist, added to the dispersion of Jews throughout the world, virtually guarantees, I believe that everyone alive is literally of the blood of Israel

The reason we know about Charlemagne is that he was a King and tracking his descendants was important

But what about Schlomo the shoemaker who lived at the same time and had as prodigious a lineage unknown to anyone because he was a totally anonymous individual, whose genealogy was never traced by anyone?

We just need to remember that we are all brothers and sisters - literally- in the long run.

And this also applies to Patriarchal Blessings.   We get people on here occasionally squawking about siblings supposedly being from two different tribes.

You have 12 sons and 4 thousand years here, and God blessed those sons that they would have more descendants than the sands of the sea.  (meaning uncountable)

We could all be descendants of ALL 12 tribes as those lines fold in on each other, or at least some of us might be!

Literal Blood of Israel?  No biggie.

  • Like 4
Link to post
9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

...................................................

D&C 86:8-10 appears to state that Joseph Smith had the priesthood through birthright.
8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers--
9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God--
10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. 
An early hint of JS' beliefs about his lineage come from 2 Ne 3, which teaches that JS is a descendant of Joseph (11th son of Israel), and though the lineage of Ephraim is one of leadership, it's not apparent that there is a lineal priesthood associated with it like there is for the Levites or the sons of Aaron.

The Book of Abraham speaks similarly of Abraham's right to priesthood, which is presumably also a reference to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  It may be that certain lineages have the right to it, just as Levites and Aaronides have a lineal right to their priesthood.  At the same time, qualified people may be ordained to either priesthood.

In ancient Israel, and even today among the Jews, the firstborn male of any tribe was always owned by God, and (unless redeemed by a cash payment to a priest) would have to serve the Lord --- as for Samuel the Prophet (of Ephraim), whose mother Hannah brought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh as a boy, and left him there to serve the High Priest Eli.

Quote

However, a Smith family lineal priesthood authority is actually well attested. JS established the position of Patriarch of the church, which originally was something akin to second in command, as a lineal position given to the eldest in a direct line from Joseph Smith Sr. This clear example of a lineal priesthood eventually disappeared when the position of church Patriarch was done away with due to conflict between the church Patriarch and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
...........................................................

Not true.  The Patriarch Eldred Smith was made emeritus when it came out that his predecessor had been an active homosexual, and the scandal was made public.  The position has not been filled since, even though we know who is next in line, and who has the birthright.  We do not know whether it will be filled in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

The Book of Abraham speaks similarly of Abraham's right to priesthood, which is presumably also a reference to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  It may be that certain lineages have the right to it, just as Levites and Aaronides have a lineal right to their priesthood.  At the same time, qualified people may be ordained to either priesthood.

In ancient Israel, and even today among the Jews, the firstborn male of any tribe was always owned by God, and (unless redeemed by a cash payment to a priest) would have to serve the Lord --- as for Samuel the Prophet (of Ephraim), whose mother Hannah brought him to the Tabernacle at Shiloh as a boy, and left him there to serve the High Priest Eli.

Very interesting.

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Not true.  The Patriarch Eldred Smith was made emeritus when it came out that his predecessor had been an active homosexual, and the scandal was made public.  The position has not been filled since, even though we know who is next in line, and who has the birthright.  We do not know whether it will be filled in the future.

Radio Free Mormon has some interesting commentary on that, but it isn't the focus of this thread so I'll retract that just to simplify the discussion here. Thanks, Robert.

Link to post
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

D&C 86 is directed to a group, not exclusively at Joseph Smith (see v. 1: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants...").

The various subsequent references in this section to "you" (v. 5, 6, 8, 10) are all plural (as evidenced by the plural form of "you" used in translated versions of the Book of Mormon).

It appears this passage is intended to be construed as applying to many members of the Church, not just Joseph Smith.  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

It seems that the "lineage" concept applies to most of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Since Spanish makes pluralizes “you” distincly clearer than does English, I went to the Spanish version of D&C 86. In Spanish “usted” is singular you whereas “ustedes” is plural. When used as an indirect object “to you” or “unto you” then usted = oustedes = os. You may also use le for you singular and les for you plural. 

Your cited verses are indeed written in the plural form. Also verse 9 (bold mine):

1 De cierto, así dice el Señor a vosotros mis siervos, concerniente a la parábola del trigo y la cizaña:

5 he aquí, de cierto os digo, los ángeles claman al Señor día y noche, y están preparados y esperando ser enviados a segar los campos;

6 mas el Señor les dice: No arranquéis la cizaña mientras la hierba todavía está tierna (porque de cierto es débil vuestra fe), no sea que destruyáis también el trigo.

8 De modo que, así os dice el Señor a vosotros en quienes ha continuado el sacerdocio por el linaje de vuestros padres,

9 porque sois herederos legítimos, según la carne, y habéis sido escondidos del mundo con Cristo en Dios,

10 por tanto, vuestra vida y el sacerdocio han permanecido, y es necesario que permanezcan por medio de vosotros y de vuestro linaje hasta la restauración de todas las cosas que se han declarado por boca de todos los santos profetas desde el principio del mundo.

Note in verse 9 “sois” is the plural form for “you are”. “Sois herederos means “you [all] are heirs”. Verse 10 is also clearly addressing a group of people when speaking about “your [priesthood] lineage”. “Permanezcan” is a plural verb meaning “remain [steadfast]” and “vosotros” is “your” in the plural form. 

Edited by Darren10
Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Patriarch Eldred Smith was made emeritus when it came out that his predecessor had been an active homosexual, and the scandal was made public.  The position has not been filled since, even though we know who is next in line, and who has the birthright.  We do not know whether it will be filled in the future.

The story of his predecessor and the Church's treatment of him given his behavior is . . . illuminating.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

D&C 86 is directed to a group, not exclusively at Joseph Smith (see v. 1: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants...").

The various subsequent references in this section to "you" (v. 5, 6, 8, 10) are all plural (as evidenced by the plural form of "you" used in translated versions of the Book of Mormon).

It appears this passage is intended to be construed as applying to many members of the Church, not just Joseph Smith.  See, e.g., here (emphases added):

It seems that the "lineage" concept applies to most of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'll have to go with smac on this one. In addition, "ye" (verse 11) is plural. And the interpretation is consistent with Abraham 2;11.

 

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ben,

A couple quick thoughts.  If you haven't read the JSP historical introduction to D&C 86, its worth a read, apparently Joseph was working on the bible translation project and may have been working on Matthew 13 as well as Jeremiah passages this same day with Rigdon. 

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-6-december-1832-dc-86/1#historical-intro

Also on the King designation, I believe this has a connection to Masonic tradition as well, but I can't remember where I read about this in the past, if it comes to me, I'll submit another reply, but I think there is something to this title that may have also been influenced from Masonry.  

 

58 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Since Spanish makes pluralizes “you” distincly clearer than does English, I went to the Spanish version of D&C 86. In Spanish “usted” is singular you whereas “ustedes” is plural. When used as an indirect object “to you” or “unto you” then usted = oustedes = os. You may also use le for you singular and les for you plural. 

Your cited verses are indeed written in the plural form. Also verse 9 (bold mine):

1 De cierto, así dice el Señor a vosotros mis siervos, concerniente a la parábola del trigo y la cizaña:

5 he aquí, de cierto os digo, los ángeles claman al Señor día y noche, y están preparados y esperando ser enviados a segar los campos;

6 mas el Señor les dice: No arranquéis la cizaña mientras la hierba todavía está tierna (porque de cierto es débil vuestra fe), no sea que destruyáis también el trigo.

8 De modo que, así os dice el Señor a vosotros en quienes ha continuado el sacerdocio por el linaje de vuestros padres,

9 porque sois herederos legítimos, según la carne, y habéis sido escondidos del mundo con Cristo en Dios,

10 por tanto, vuestra vida y el sacerdocio han permanecido, y es necesario que permanezcan por medio de vosotros y de vuestro linaje hasta la restauración de todas las cosas que se han declarado por boca de todos los santos profetas desde el principio del mundo.

Note in verse 9 “sois” is the plural form for “you are”. “Sois herederos means “you [all] are heirs”. Verse 10 is also clearly addressing a group of people when speaking about “your [priesthood] lineage”. “Permanezcan” is a plural verb meaning “remain [steadfast]” and “vosotros” is “your” in the plural form. 

Yes, section 86 is addressed in plural, an important fact that I missed. My mistake (This is exactly why I post stuff like this on the board. I love the instant feedback and poking holes, etc.)!

Looking into the plural aspect of the revelation has already turned up some interesting information, but before I launch into that, I'd just like to point out that the other significant idea of this thread, that Joseph Smith believed himself to be of the lineage of Jesse/David and that his unborn son would be the new King David leading the church (and probably the world or something like that), is true whether D&C 86 is referring specifically to Joseph or not.In terms of the plural address in D&C 86, some pertinent information about audience is found in the source document linked to by Hope above. A short note following the revelation reads:

Kirtland December 6th. A[D] 1932 given by Joseph the seer and writen by Sidney the scribe an[d] Councellor, & Transcribed by Frederick assistent scribe and counceller

Frederick William's transcription occurred sometime in January or February of 1833 according to the JSP source note, which means the only two names specifically tied to this revelation's reception are Joseph and Sidney. Essentially, there is an argument to be made that the plural address of this revelation is specifically to Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon. If true, this could be seen as a follow up to an event earlier in 1832 in which Sidney Rigdon preached that the keys of the kingdom had been taken from the church, after which JS corrected him. This was no small matter apparently, and JS prophecied that Rigdon would be afflicted by Satan. Some weeks later Rigdon was spiritually attacked while laying in bed, and then still later Rigdon was reordained by JS, who was satisfied with Rigdon's repentance. From start to finish, this all apparently happened in July of 1832. Whatever Rigdon's doubts about the keys may have been, would have been nullified by a right to priesthood if they "were lawful heirs according to the flesh."

Though, I don't know of any specific priesthood authority assigned to Rigdon's lineage, I still think this 1832 revelation could be an early indication that there was a lineal priesthood in the Smith family, which would be made explicit and irrefutable later on with the establishment of the lineal position of Patriarch to the Church.

Looking at JSP website I came across this interesting 1835 tie in from D&C 107:

39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—

40 The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

Anyways, the plural address of D&C 86 definitely muddies the waters. Either way, the lineal priesthood position of presiding patriarch emerges in the Smith family, and the maybe the most interesting piece of it is that Joseph appeared to have believed that his priesthood office of King was tied to a lineage traced back to King David, and that JS' son David would someday fill that role.

Link to post
21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

(I fixed the links in my comment earlier - for some reason the forum changed it to an image -- I have links to the main papers)

For the above, the book Lost Legacy is really worth reading. I'm not sure the office is done, but it's worth noting that in an age where nearly everyone lives in a stake it's a position without a clear function.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to post
Just now, clarkgoble said:

(I fixed the links in my comment earlier - for some reason the forum changed it to an image -- I have links to the main papers)

For the above, the book Lost Legacy is really worth reading. I'm not sure the office is done, but it's worth noting that in an age where nearly everyone lives in a stake it's a position without a clear function.

Well, considering the position's original grandeur, both the authority and the prophet-seer-revelator aspects of the position haven't been made defunct by stake patriarchs! 

Link to post

@Benjamin Seeker yes, it seems to me the patriarchal order, which the evangelical minister (office of patriarch) operated under,  is more expansive than just the one office, and was part of the priesthood conveyed through the Abraham covenant. This article explains the differences and connections:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchal_priesthood

It seems the lineage within the LDS Church was not always father toson, nor a relative to the Smiths.

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, considering the position's original grandeur, both the authority and the prophet-seer-revelator aspects of the position haven't been made defunct by stake patriarchs! 

I think the original grandeur is after the pattern of the Original Father -- how grander can things get than that, and what greater gift can He bestow His children? I think this is the inheritance of all the joint-heirs with Christ. The patriarchal order can manifest in various structures, depending on whether the government and society are theocratic as they were in the days of Adam and others, and at some point in the Millennium. But most certainly and everlastingly in the Church of the Firstborn.

Edited by CV75
Link to post
59 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, considering the position's original grandeur, both the authority and the prophet-seer-revelator aspects of the position haven't been made defunct by stake patriarchs! 

The argument is much more that Ehat's separating Patriarchal Priesthood from Melchizedek is wrong and that temple sealings, especially after adoption became doctrine, more or less took over the notion. Again though read the papers and I'd be happy to discuss them here. But I think reading those is necessary before really discussing. Again Stapley's views are pretty different from Ehat's and what most people thought in the 90's. As I hinted I'm not completely satisfied with Jonathan's or Sam's reworkings. (In particularly I worry Sam's injected a tad too much neoplatonism into it - despite coming around to thinking that's an important influence on early Mormonism) However I don't have better ideas so this is a place I suspect more is left to write.

As an aside, it's interesting reading the RLDS take on this in the 19th century as they emphasize the linear descendent issue much more than the LDS did - since by and large Brigham was seen as valid by us due to his part in higher ordinances of the temple. (This is different from what persuaded people to go west since most didn't even know what second anointings were)

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Book of Abraham speaks similarly of Abraham's right to priesthood, which is presumably also a reference to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  It may be that certain lineages have the right to it, just as Levites and Aaronides have a lineal right to their priesthood.  At the same time, qualified people may be ordained to either priesthood.

Would not all descendants of Joseph through Ephraim be entitled to the priesthood providing they met the other qualifications? Much as a literal descendant of Aaron has the legal right to the office of a bishop, providing he meets the other qualifications.

Glenn

Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The only religious king I know is Jesus Christ.

That's funny.  Maybe you should ask him about that.
Because he knows lots of them.

  • Revelation 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

In fact, he is so completely destined to be king of kings that he actually seeks to make us kings in his kingdom.

  • Revelation 1:  6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Apparently there are to be lots of religious kings, all ruling and reigning under Christ, the king of kings.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to post
4 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Well, considering the position's original grandeur, both the authority and the prophet-seer-revelator aspects of the position haven't been made defunct by stake patriarchs! 

The problem is that every priesthood holder is now a patriarch to their family. It's that expansion that is the key issue. Further that expansion is part and parcel of what Joseph brought out. It's also why adoption becomes so important theologically. It is what enables every patriarch to give an account of their stewardship to the one over them on back to Joseph Smith. Joseph will then give it to Adam who will present it to Jesus. The grandeur is ultimately that we're not saved individually as many Evangelicals have it but as an united family.

Edited by clarkgoble
Link to post
8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Blood of Israel?  It is possible that everyone on earth is literally of the "blood of Israel".

https://www.theguardian.com/science/commentisfree/2015/may/24/business-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

So Charlemagne lived about 1200 years ago- so within 1200 years that one individual had that many descendants

Jacob, who became named Israel, lived about 4 THOUSAND years ago and had 12 sons.

So one could multiply the "Charlemagne Effect" by 12 for all 12 sons multiply THAT number by 3 roughly accounting for the fact that Israel lived 3 thousand years before Charlemagne (rough numbers, obviously)  http://biblehub.com/timeline/

The mere fact that most genetic lines die out while others persist, added to the dispersion of Jews throughout the world, virtually guarantees, I believe that everyone alive is literally of the blood of Israel

The reason we know about Charlemagne is that he was a King and tracking his descendants was important

But what about Schlomo the shoemaker who lived at the same time and had as prodigious a lineage unknown to anyone because he was a totally anonymous individual, whose genealogy was never traced by anyone?

We just need to remember that we are all brothers and sisters - literally- in the long run.

And this also applies to Patriarchal Blessings.   We get people on here occasionally squawking about siblings supposedly being from two different tribes.

You have 12 sons and 4 thousand years here, and God blessed those sons that they would have more descendants than the sands of the sea.  (meaning uncountable)

We could all be descendants of ALL 12 tribes as those lines fold in on each other, or at least some of us might be!

Literal Blood of Israel?  No biggie.

Interestingly, David married Bathsheba who was presumably a Hittite. The Hittites had one of the oldest known Indo-European languages, and their word for water was watar. They were apparently ancestors of the English Saxons - so if you have English blood, Solomon could have been your grandpappy. So although these ideas are regularly made fun of, there is Biblical precedent which can support it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Would not all descendants of Joseph through Ephraim be entitled to the priesthood providing they met the other qualifications? Much as a literal descendant of Aaron has the legal right to the office of a bishop, providing he meets the other qualifications.

Glenn

I do not know, but  have seen no indication of that.  What we do see is that specific descendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt seem to have some special status or assignment (Joseph Smith Sr, and Joseph Smith Jr) -- a foreordination, if you will.

Link to post
11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I do not know, but  have seen no indication of that.  What we do see is that specific descendants of Joseph who was sold into Egypt seem to have some special status or assignment (Joseph Smith Sr, and Joseph Smith Jr) -- a foreordination, if you will.

Is it true, Robert, that such foreordinations (as opposed to the Calvinist concept of radical predestinations) go unfulfilled unless the foreordained individual is actually ORDAINED by someone who possesses the priesthood power and authority to confer legitimate priesthood authority upon the foreordained individual? Or are there individuals who are simply born with priesthood power and authority who have no need to be called and ordained of God as was Aaron? In other words. are there examples of individuals who were ordained to priesthood power in the premortal world who didn't have to be "reordaimed" in the mortal world in order to exercise legitimate priesthood keys and power?

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Is it true, Robert, that such foreordinations (as opposed to the Calvinist concept of radical predestinations) go unfulfilled unless the foreordained individual is actually ORDAINED by someone who possesses the priesthood power and authority to confer legitimate priesthood authority upon the foreordained individual? Or are there individuals who are simply born with priesthood power and authority who have no need to be called and ordained of God as was Aaron? In other words. are there examples of individuals who were ordained to priesthood power in the premortal world who didn't have to be "reordaimed" in the mortal world in order to exercise legitimate priesthood keys and power?

Yes, and should there be failure of some of those foreordained, God always has a remnant available to carry out His will -- as Elijah was surprised to learn after complaining to God about how alone he was.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Moroni Spagnola
      Can you be a socialist and priest at the same time? I was a socialist priest and got sealed in the Temple with my family. My stake president says it's okay. 
       
      Why do members keep sharing talks from fifty years ago to persuade me into their Utah Culture? I love the Book of Mormon and it does not support unregulated capitalism. If anything my sacred scriptures support socialism. I will use the Book of Mormon as my evidence. If you leave a comment, I will not reply to general conference consider cultural doctrine. Use the Book of Mormon to defend your stance of why I can't be a priest in the church.
      I love the Book of Mormon because one theme in it is obvious: At their most righteous, the Nephites  were benevolent socialists; at their most depraved, they were greedy free-market capitalists.
      In the zenith of Nephite culture, "the Lord called his people Zion because they were of one heart and one mind and they did have all things in common — and there were no poor among them." Having "all things in common" suggests a society invested in public infrastructure and welfare for the whole.
      Redistribution is not an anomaly in Mormon scriptures. Joseph Smith declared that "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20).
      For any conservative this is surely commie talk! Yet Smith persisted, "If you are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things" (D&C 78:5-6).
      Early Mormon leaders advocated a United Order to redistribute wealth for the benefit of all Saints.
      Though redistribution is the highest economic order in Mormon scripture, LDS Priest vehemently denounce "democratic socialism." I guess some Latterday Saints seem to believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a de facto 14th Article of Faith: We believe in the unquestioned virtue of unregulated capitalism.
      But Mormon scripture makes such a belief indefensible. The notorious villains of Nephite civilization were the Gadianton Robbers, who perpetuated policies that exacerbated class inequality. They eventually "did obtain the sole management of the government, insomuch that they did trample under their feet and smite and rend and turn their backs upon the poor and the meek, and the humble followers of God" (Helaman 6:39).
      Many politically powerful Latter-day Saints have also turned their back on the poor and working class in this country. They are determined to eliminate the very social programs that have traditionally protected vulnerable populations. Conversely, they are equally invested in protecting the wealthy.
      They demand fiscal austerity but are unwilling to fairly tax the super rich. They demand the poor make sacrifices, but are unwilling to end corporate welfare and tax loopholes that keep big business from sharing the burden. They want to cut public funding for education, arts and health care but remain unwilling to defund our military occupations abroad.
      They denounce socialism but have no problem when the redistribution of public wealth goes upward into private hands. Gadianton himself would feel right at home amidst Utah's GOP.
      My reading of the Book of Mormon is not idiosyncratic. I saw in my sacred texts a spiritual rationale to support my own socialist programs, including a National Health Care System, that Bernie Sanders will give to the people. 
      I actually believe the admonition of Jesus, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.
      Fair-minded Latter-day Saints must reclaim their sacred texts from free-market fundamentalists. Don't be taken in by the right-wing performance art of a hysterical conservative that puts his politics above his religion. Americans can support both a robust market economy and sustainable safety nets for the meek and humble. But it will require that corporations and affluent citizens invest deeply in public infrastructure.
      The Book of Mormon narrative, regardless of its historicity, admonishes contemporary Latter-day Saints to reject riches and to care for the poor and needy. Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture. It is our common quest for Zion.
      Now it's your turn. Use the book of Mormon to defend unregulated capitalism. 
    • By David in NY
      Good morning! Can anyone point me to the source of an alleged quote by Joseph Smith to the effect of "When I'm speaking as prophet, I'll let you know. The rest of the time I'm just Joe Smith."?
      THANKS!
    • By Broker
      Since we are focusing on the restoration and in particular the experiences of Joseph Smith, has anyone considered young Joseph's leg operation as a type of Christ?
      He was seven  years old. Seven can signify the fulfillment of a prophecy, in this case a type of the fulfillment of Christ's Atonement.
      His body had an infection that needed to be removed. Analogous to sin that needed to be cleansed.
      He declared that he would do whatever was required to remove the infection...Christ was willing to do whatever was required to remove our sins.
      The infection was removed by the shedding of a lot of blood. He endured pain that took him to his bodily and spiritual limits.
      Before the final operation, painful incisions were made in his leg, analogous to a scourging of his body.
      He was upheld through the experience by His Father.
      He refused a drink that might have made the ordeal more bearable.
      During his greatest agony, his concerned turned towards his Mother, by asking her to leave the awful scene.
      The doctors wanted to amputate his leg, but in the end, not bones were broken.
      He bore the marks, a limp, of his ordeal for the remainder of his life.
      Perhaps there are other analogies, and maybe this is a stretch comparison, but Joseph Smith was one of the greatest prophets, if not the greatest prophet to live on the earth. He had unusual spiritual and physical strength to enable him to do the work. For the Lord to use him as a type of himself would not be unusual for a prophet of God.
       
       
    • By blueglass
      Here is the 2019 end of year seminary assessment my kids received yesterday. Would love to hear your thoughts on the questions, the probable answers, and the doctrine taught.  Don't forget the last 4 questions pertaining to the Explain Doctrine section.  
      https://ibb.co/Dfz4JNr
      Read instructions before you start the test:
      Exam code: 8
      If you have difficulty taking the learning assessment in the traditional way, please talk with your teacher to figure out the best way to help you succeed.
      Use a no. 2 or HB pencil. Indicate your response by completely filling in the bubble on your answer sheet.
      Section name: Multiple Choice
        1.  Who will receive a place in a kingdom of glory? (1 mark)
      a) Every individual born into mortality
      b) All of God's children except the sons of perdition
      c) Only individuals who are worthy of exaltation
        2. Which of the following is a specific responsibility mentioned in the oath and covenant of the priesthood? (1 mar)
      a) To magnify their callings
      b) To pay a generous fast offering
      c) To not be idle
        3. Because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, in the Resurrection all individuals will receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) at least a terrestrial glory
      b) celestial glory
      c) glory according to the law they obeyed
        4. Which of the following blessings does God offer to those who keep the Word of Wisdom? (1 mark)
      a) They will not be burned at the Second Coming.
      b) Their bodies will be protected from all illness.
      c) They will receive wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.
        5. To be endowed in the temple means to receive ____ (1 mark)
      a) a guarantee of eternal life
      b) spiritual power and knowledge
      c) unique physical gifts from the Lord
        6. What does the existence of the precious truths in the Pearl of Great Pric teach us about the Prophet Joseph Smith? (1 mark)
      a) He no longer needed the power of God to help him translate.
      b) He was a prophet, seer, and revelator.
      c) He is the only prophet of this dispensation that can receive new scripture.
        7. As watchmen on the tower, modern prophets have a responsibility to ____ (1 mark)
      a) warn us of coming dangers
      b) stop Satan from tempting members of the Church
      c) change truth to fit modern times
        8. What is a bishop's or branch president's main responsibility when a teenager confesses sin to him? (1 mark)
      a) To prevent the person from being part of the Church
      b) To help the person receive forgiveness of the sins and regain peace of mind
      c) To inflict severe consequences and punishments from sinning
        9. Who visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple to restore priesthood keys? (1 mark)
      a) Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Malachi
      b) Moses, Elias, and Elijah
      c) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
        10. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, what are tithing funds used for? (1 mark)
      a) They are the main fund the Church uses to support the poor and the needy.
      b) They are used to build temples and to accomplish the work of the Lord.
      c) They are used to pay ward and branch members for serving in the Church.
        11. While the Prophet Joseph Smith was falsely imprisoned in Liberty Jail, the Lord taught him that adversity and affliction
      (1 mark)
      a) will not occur if we trust in God
      b) are always a consequence of our poor choices
      c) can give us experience and be for our good
        12. Which of the following is a true statement about Relief Society? (1 mark)
      a) It was divinely organized to assist in the work of salvation.
      b) It was established during the trek west to help Saints who were suffering.
      c) It did not exist during the lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
        13. A man and a woman will receive eternal life and glory if _____ (1 mark)
      a) they love each other more than they love themselves
      b) they keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they made in the temple
      c) they are married in the temple
        14. Why do our ancestors who die without having a knowledge of the gospel need us to perform ordinances for them in the temple?
      a) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot progress toward eternal life. (1 mark)
      b) Without these ordinances, our ancestors cannot be saved in any kingdom of glory.
      c} Without these ordinances, our ancestors will not be resurrected.
        15. Marriage between one man and one woman is the Lord's standing law. Wen is the only time plural marriage is justified?
      a) Wen there are more women than men in the Church (1 mark)
      b) Whenever local laws and traditions allow members to practice it without breaking the law
      c) When the Lord authorizes it through the priesthood keys given to the President of the Church
        16. When the President of the Church dies, which quorum becomes the presiding quorum of the Church? (1 mark)
      a) The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
      b) The Quorum of the First Presidency
      c) The Presiding Bishopric
        17. Which of the following shows the correct chronological order (first to last) of places the Saints were told to gather to? (1 mark}
      a) A stake in their homeland; Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah
      b) Nauvoo, Illinois; Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
      c) Winter Quarters, Nebraska; Nauvoo, Illinois; Salt Lake City, Utah; a stake in their homeland
        18. After the Savior visited the spirit world, what did righteous spirits there begin to do?
      a} They were all resurrected and began entering the highest kingdom of glory.
      b) They began performing ordinances for those who had not received them.
      c) They began teaching the gospel to those in spirit prison.
      (1 mark)
        19. According to Official Declaration 2, the Lord revealed that all worthy male Church members may ___ _ (1 mark)
      a) receive the ordinance of baptism
      b) serve a mission at age 18
      c) receive the priesthood and enjoy temple blessings
        20. What principle is emphasized in Doctrine and Covenants 121:36, 41-2? (1 mark)
      a) Priesthood holders can draw upon the powers of heaven only if they live righteously.
      b) lf we actively seek to learn through study and faith, our faith in Jesus Christ will increase.
      c) If we obey the Lord, He will always keep His promises to bless us.
        21. Which of the following accurately describes Heavenly Father? (1 mark)
      a) He is without feelings or emotions.
      b) He is a personage of Spirit and can dwell in us.
      c) He has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's.
        22. Which of the following is a requirement for receiving exaltation in the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) Bearing testimony of the Savior is all that is needed.
      b) Receiving a patriarchal blessing
      c) Receiving and being valiant in the testimony of Jesus Christ
        23. Of the following groups, who will inherit the celestial kingdom? (1 mark)
      a) All children who die before they reach the age of accountability
      b) All members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
      c) All individuals who have been baptized
        24. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "God doesn't care how marriage is defined"? (1 mark)
      a) Ever individual born into morality is a child of God, and God loves each of us.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God changes truth to meet the circumstances and needs of His children.
        25. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "It isn't as important for couples to have children today as it used to
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) God's commandment fr husbands and wives to have children remains in force today.
        26. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As long as two individuals love each other, physical intimacy is
      acceptable"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
        27. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "As governments continue to redefine marriage, God's definition of
      marriage will change to reflect the values of modern society"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      b) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      c) Changes in the civil law do not change the moral law that God has established.
        28. Which eternal truth corrects the following worldly philosophy: "The only purpose of marriage is for adults to find fulfillment and
      happiness"? (1 mark)
      a) Marriage between a man and a woman is the ideal setting for children to be born, reared, and nurtured.
      b) Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.
      c) God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman who are
      lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
      Section name: Explain Doctrine _
      Instructions: Write your answer on a piece of paper. Compare your response with the correct answer received from your teacher. After self-grading the explain-doctrine question, bubble in your answer sheet.
      Self-grade your answer for each question:
      a. Yes, I explained this in my response.
      b. No, I left this out of my response.
        29. What is an example of a truth that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the truth you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        30. What is an example of an ordinance that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why the ordinance you chose can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        31. What is an example of priesthood authority that was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Explain why this authority of the priesthood can help you receive eternal life. (1 mark)
        32. Share your personal thoughts on the importance of the Prophet Joseph Smith. (1 mark)
    • By SouthernMo
      The timeline and reasons of how the idea of polygamy evolved into practice is perplexing.  It is causing me doubt how scriptures are to be obeyed, and how to trust the revelatory process.  Let's look at the pattern Joseph Smith followed:
      March 1830 - Joseph Smith publishes the Book of Mormon (supposedly scripture) which contains commandments from God.  The only discussion of polygamy is found in Jacob 2, which clearly condemns the practice.  However, there is a provision given for exceptions: only to 'raise up seed' if God commands it.
      The Gospel Topics Essay on Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo states that "After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates."  The only revelation I know of on polygamy came in July 1843 (D&C 132), yet Joseph Smith had married 22 (by some count) additional wives by July 1843.
      2 Big Questions:
      1. What revelation did Joseph Smith receive (per the mentioned Gospel Topic Essay) before the D&C 132 revelation that told him to practice polygamy, despite the Book of Mormon's 1830 prohibition (with exception)?
      2. In light of the Jacob 2:30 provision for the allowance of polygamy to "raise up seed unto me..." why are there no (known) children that emerged from Joseph Smith's plural wives?  Joseph apparently did not use polygamy to 'raise up seed.'
×
×
  • Create New...