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

[Benjamin Seeker]

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 October 9, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[The Nehor]

"I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were a consecrated collective."

[smac97]

6 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. 

 

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):

Quote

Most members of the Church understand the principles of heirship and adoption, but they often misunderstand the meaning of some key terms in the scriptures. Terms like literal descendants of Abraham by birth, tribe of Israel, house of Israel, lineage, and Gentiles are sometimes confused, and some terms have a range of meanings, referring to different ideas in different contexts.

...

The descendants of Abraham (Hebrews) include anyone whose lineage goes back to any of the sons born to Abraham and his three wives. These wives and their sons, listed in the order of the wives’ marriages to Abraham, are as follows: from Sarah—Isaac; from Hagar—Ishmael; from Keturah—Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah.

...

The basic meaning of lineage is “descent in a line from a common progenitor.” Thus, in a patriarchal blessing, lineage is being declared (from Abraham, or Israel, or Ephraim, etc.) when terms indicating direct descent are used, such as “son of,” “daughter of,” “seed of,” “blood of,” “descendant of,” or “from the loins of.”

...

Concerning the responsibility of the patriarch to declare such lineage, the First Presidency of Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay announced: “Patriarchal blessings contemplate inspired declaration of the lineage of the recipient.” (Messages of the First Presidency, 6 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1975, 6:194.)

Patriarchs have also been counseled: “A vital part of every patriarchal blessing is the declaration of lineage. … The patriarch should be responsive to the whisperings of the Spirit as he identifies lineage and the special promises and blessings attendant thereto. … The declaration of lineage is to come by the promptings of the Holy Ghost. This inspiration can come to the patriarch regardless of the race or nationality of the person receiving the blessing.” (Information and Suggestions for Patriarchs, p. 4; quoted by permission.)

In view of the foregoing statements, we can see that the lineages declared in patriarchal blessings are almost always statements of actual blood lines; they are not simply tribal identifications by assignment.

...

Joseph Fielding Smith: “Every person who embraces the gospel becomes of the house of Israel. In other words, they become members of the chosen lineage, or Abraham’s children through Isaac and Jacob unto whom the promises were made. The great majority of those who become members of the Church are literal descendants of Abraham through Ephraim, son of Joseph. Those who are not literal descendants of Abraham and Israel must become such, and when they are baptized and confirmed they are grafted into the tree and are entitled to all the rights and privileges as heirs.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 3:246.)

...

The clear teaching of the prophets is that few persons not of the blood of Abraham have become members of the Church in this dispensation; the terms “adopted into the house of Israel” or “assigned to a tribe of Israel” pertain only to those relatively few members.

It is important to remind ourselves that the blessings of eternity are guaranteed for all who are faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ, regardless of their lineage. 

...

From what the prophets have said, then, most members of the Church come from Gentile nations, but they have some Israelite ancestors in their lineage. Therefore, they are not “assigned to” or “adopted into” the house of Israel. They are legal heirs of the covenant, and the lineage proclaimed in their patriarchal blessings identifies the blood line that ties them back to Abraham.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

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 October 9, 2017 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

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.  

[clarkgoble]

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 October 9, 2017 by clarkgoble
Forum weirdly turned link into image

[mfbukowski]

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

[Benjamin Seeker]

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.

[Darren10]

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 = o; ustedes = 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 October 9, 2017 by Darren10

[smac97]

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

[Benjamin Seeker]

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 = o; ustedes = 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.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

(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 October 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Tacenda]

The only religious king I know is Jesus Christ.

[Benjamin Seeker]

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! 

[CV75]

@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 October 9, 2017 by CV75

[clarkgoble]

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 October 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

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

[JLHPROF]

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 October 9, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Darren10]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The only religious king I know is Jesus Christ.

Definitely the best focal point of religious knowledge.

[clarkgoble]

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 October 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

[Bobbieaware]

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?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.