D&C section 2

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, snowflake said:

My question is, why wasn't the Priesthood restored by the hand of Elijah the prophet per D&C 2?

This is how Joseph Smith explained it:
"Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing; but the sons of Levi were too prejudiced. "And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord," etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness. (DHC IV:211.) 

Elijah held the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood. The fact that Elijah would "reveal unto you the Priesthood" is not quite the same as conferring and ordaining the priesthood on someone like Peter James and John did.  The revealing included the restoration of certain priesthood keys that would make complete the restoration of priesthood authority on earth.

Edited November 8, 2017 by JAHS

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This is how Joseph Smith explained it:
"Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of the Priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and deliver the keys of the Priesthood, in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing; but the sons of Levi were too prejudiced. "And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord," etc., etc. Why send Elijah? Because he holds the keys of the authority to administer in all the ordinances of the Priesthood; and without the authority is given, the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness. (DHC IV:211.) 

The fact that Elijah would "reveal unto you the Priesthood" is not quite the same as conferring and ordaining the priesthood on someone like Peter James and John did. The revealing included the restoration of certain priesthood keys that would make complete the restoration of priesthood authority on earth.

I have wondered why Peter didn't restore them - he also held the sealing keys.

And my feeling is that it has to do with the law of stewardship.  Peter could have restored the Aaronic priesthood too, but John had that stewardship.  Heck, Christ could personally have restored all the priesthoods and attendant keys.  But stewardship matters.

[Avatar4321]

14 hours ago, snowflake said:

D&C section 2:

1 Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.

3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

From what I understand the Aaronic Priesthood was restored by John the Baptist to Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith in 1829.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/2?lang=eng

The Melchizedek Priesthood apparently was restored by Peter, James and John at a later date with the details not documented as precisely.

https://history.lds.org/article/historic-sites/pennsylvania/priesthood-restoration-site/where-was-the-priesthood-restored?lang=eng

My question is, why wasn't the Priesthood restored by the hand of Elijah the prophet per D&C 2?

Elijah restored the sealing keys of the priesthood, without which we cannot recieve the fullness of the priesthood.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Elijah restored the sealing keys of the priesthood, without which we cannot recieve the fullness of the priesthood.

Agreed.  But Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood which allowed for the ordination of Apostles before Elijah came.  Which is interesting since we generally consider Apostle to be the highest priesthood on earth.  Yet there was still more.

The hymn is right- there is no end to priesthood.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Priesthood Keys are spoken of in the NT.  I'm not sure if there are earlier records that speak about them.

I don't think the NT mentions priesthood keys at all--interpreting keys of the kingdom as being priesthood keys is most definitely a Mormon private interpretation.  But I am curious when the priesthood keys concept was formulated in Joseph's time, if in Joseph's time.  I'll see what I can find.  Doesn't sound anyone knows.

[Duncan]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think the NT mentions priesthood keys at all--interpreting keys of the kingdom as being priesthood keys is most definitely a Mormon private interpretation.  But I am curious when the priesthood keys concept was formulated in Joseph's time, if in Joseph's time.  I'll see what I can find.  Doesn't sound anyone knows.

i'd be interested to know how other Churches interpret "keys of the kingdom"

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think the NT mentions priesthood keys at all--interpreting keys of the kingdom as being priesthood keys is most definitely a Mormon private interpretation.  But I am curious when the priesthood keys concept was formulated in Joseph's time, if in Joseph's time.  I'll see what I can find.  Doesn't sound anyone knows.

It doesn't use the term 'priesthood keys' but the meaning is the same.  Christ gives Peter the authority to administer in the Kingdom of God, which the keys represent.  That's what priesthood keys are in the LDS church, the authority to administer in the kingdom of God.

Different terminology but the general meaning is the same.

 

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know how other Churches interpret "keys of the kingdom"

I know that lots of protestants view it similar to the way that LDS view it (only they don't believe that the keys needed to be passed on or that they are necessary today)-that Christ was giving Peter authority to administer HIs gospel to the world.  Some  protestants teach that the keys are symbolic of spreading the gospel and that all believers have them.

Catholics view it similar to the general definition that LDS adhere to as well, but the only keys they (if i understand right) believe exist are the key to bind and the key to loose, and these are held by the pope.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't use the term 'priesthood keys' but the meaning is the same.  Christ gives Peter the authority to administer in the Kingdom of God, which the keys represent.  That's what priesthood keys are in the LDS church, the authority to administer in the kingdom of God.

Different terminology but the general meaning is the same.

 

I do understand the private interpretation that Mormons apply.  that is not my question.  But I do wonder how that interpretation evolved within early Mormonism. Scanning for the word keys in the Doctrine and Covenants, even our modern rendition of that collection of revelations, doesn't give us much in the use of keys of the priesthood.  it seems it appeared later in Joseph's evolving theology.  It seems evident that the concepts of priesthoods as we use them today didn't really seem to come around for Joseph until years after John came to Joseph and Oliver teaching/commanding baptism. 

[RevTestament]

19 hours ago, snowflake said:

Where in the NT do the Apostles receive the Priesthood? According to the Torah only Levites we able to receive the office of Priesthood. 

This is not so. Abraham was not a Levite, but held the Priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood was a lesser branch to which the Levitical priesthood was appointed, but the Melchizedek priesthood has been carried by numerous other families such as Jethro who presumably was descended from Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah. As Paul points out we have no evidence that Yeshua was descended from a Levite, but he too held or received the priesthood. Jews seem to hold the mistaken belief that only Levites can hold the priesthood, but this is not so.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I do understand the private interpretation that Mormons apply.  that is not my question.  But I do wonder how that interpretation evolved within early Mormonism. Scanning for the word keys in the Doctrine and Covenants, even our modern rendition of that collection of revelations, doesn't give us much in the use of keys of the priesthood.  it seems it appeared later in Joseph's evolving theology.  It seems evident that the concepts of priesthoods as we use them today didn't really seem to come around for Joseph until years after John came to Joseph and Oliver teaching/commanding baptism. 

My point was that, in it's basic form, i don't think it is a private mormon interpretation.  

 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My point was that, in it's basic form, i don't think it is a private mormon interpretation.  

 

k.  Not really what I'm after here though. 

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This is not so. Abraham was not a Levite, but held the Priesthood. The Aaronic priesthood was a lesser branch to which the Levitical priesthood was appointed, but the Melchizedek priesthood has been carried by numerous other families such as Jethro who presumably was descended from Midian, the son of Abraham and Keturah. As Paul points out we have no evidence that Yeshua was descended from a Levite, but he too held or received the priesthood. Jews seem to hold the mistaken belief that only Levites can hold the priesthood, but this is not so.

Where do you get the idea Abraham and other families held the Melchizedek Priesthood?.....sources please. 

Yeshua was baptized by John the baptist who was from the Levitical line, Yeshua was from the line of David, but baptism doesn't ordain Priesthood according to LDS theology correct? 

Also after Moses, do you have any examples of non Levites having the priesthood in the Bible? 

 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Where do you get the idea Abraham and other families held the Melchizedek Priesthood?.....sources please. 

Yeshua was baptized by John the baptist who was from the Levitical line, Yeshua was from the line of David, but baptism doesn't ordain Priesthood according to LDS theology correct? 

Also after Moses, do you have any examples of non Levites having the priesthood in the Bible? 

 

Perhaps you could give us your understanding of the Biblical  term priesthood?

It is easy to say nobody was ordained to the priesthood if some situations aren't recognized as relating to it.  How does the traditional Christian define and recognize a priesthood act?

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Where do you get the idea Abraham and other families held the Melchizedek Priesthood?.....sources please. 

Yeshua was baptized by John the baptist who was from the Levitical line, Yeshua was from the line of David, but baptism doesn't ordain Priesthood according to LDS theology correct? 

Also after Moses, do you have any examples of non Levites having the priesthood in the Bible? 

Yes. The Romans appointed high priests to the temple, who the people recognized as having authority, although God may not have recognized it. And again, there is no evidence Yeshua was a Levite. Further, in the early Gentile Church, non-Levites held the priesthood, or are you going to denounce the Nicene Creed as being the non-authoritative creed that it is? Again, Jethro wasn't after Moses, but there is every biblical reason to believe Moses received the priesthood from Jethro, since it was Jethro's daughter who pressed Moses to circumcise their child. Jethro also instructed Moses in the seventy etc. D&C helps fill that in. Hebrews says Melchizedek was a priest. The Bible doesn't talk about Abraham receiving the priesthood, but he does tithe to Melchizedek. 

[Duncan]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I do understand the private interpretation that Mormons apply.  that is not my question.  But I do wonder how that interpretation evolved within early Mormonism. Scanning for the word keys in the Doctrine and Covenants, even our modern rendition of that collection of revelations, doesn't give us much in the use of keys of the priesthood.  it seems it appeared later in Joseph's evolving theology.  It seems evident that the concepts of priesthoods as we use them today didn't really seem to come around for Joseph until years after John came to Joseph and Oliver teaching/commanding baptism. 

it's mentioned in DC 81:2, which came out early 1832

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

it's mentioned in DC 81:2, which came out early 1832

Thanks Duncan.  I appreciate it.

I looked up D&C 81 in the Joseph Smith Papers Project.  It's pretty close.  It used to be a revelation to Jesse Gause but later was changed to be for Frederick G. Williams (in our current version).  I appears in the 1835 version it was changed to Frederick G. Williams.  Interesting aside.  Gause was a convert in 1831 and quickly given the role in the 1st Presidency, and then sent on a mission.  His wife refused to join and they fought about it, apparently.  But on return of his mission he left the faith.  It is said he was excommunicated in Dec 1832.  They decided, apparently, to just say the revelation was given to Frederick G. Williams after that.  Gause was pretty much an unknown figure in early Mormonism until the 1980s, hidden from history, until people were able to consult the original records. 

Having the keys of the kingdom belonging always to the Presidency of the High Priesthood, which I assume is referring to the newly organized First Presidency of the Church--raising another interesting question about why we neglect this revelation in favor of a later claim that Joseph handed over the keys of the kingdom to the 12 apostles?  Another aside, but another interesting question for me to pursue here.

I'm not sure this quite qualifies for a reference to keys of the priesthood, although it is getting closer to the idea.  Joseph was morphing in time and figuring out how best to refer to these things, I guess.

 

 

[snowflake]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps you could give us your understanding of the Biblical  term priesthood?

It is easy to say nobody was ordained to the priesthood if some situations aren't recognized as relating to it.  How does the traditional Christian define and recognize a priesthood act?

From what I understand the priesthood before Jesus refers to the descendants of Aaron, brother of Moses, the Levites. The Levites were in charge of the temple and tabernacle in the wilderness. To serve in the temple they had to be without blemish, and I believe the age of 30.

Here is a link: http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/levitical_priests.htm

In the age of the church all believers are considered to have direct access to God through our Lord and Savior Jesus, believers are all members of "a Royal Priesthood" men and women.  1 Peter chapter 2.

Our Lord Jesus is now the Great High Priest, the priesthood and the law was changed according to Hebrews 7 and 8 for the better. We now have the Son who is consecrated forever, the old law and priesthood is done for one that is much better per Hebrews 8.

Most Biblical scholars consider Melchezedek a "type" of Jesus, Hebrews 7: 

³ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 

I hope this helps.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

From what I understand the priesthood before Jesus refers to the descendants of Aaron, brother of Moses, the Levites. The Levites were in charge of the temple and tabernacle in the wilderness. To serve in the temple they had to be without blemish, and I believe the age of 30.

Here is a link: http://www.templeinstitute.org/red_heifer/levitical_priests.htm

In the age of the church all believers are considered to have direct access to God through our Lord and Savior Jesus, believers are all members of "a Royal Priesthood" men and women.  1 Peter chapter 2.

Our Lord Jesus is now the Great High Priest, the priesthood and the law was changed according to Hebrews 7 and 8 for the better. We now have the Son who is consecrated forever, the old law and priesthood is done for one that is much better per Hebrews 8.

Most Biblical scholars consider Melchezedek a "type" of Jesus, Hebrews 7: 

³ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually. 

I hope this helps.

Yes and no.  It defines who you consider to be priesthood bearers, but it doesn't define what priesthood is or what acts directly relate to being a member of the priesthood. 

See the claim is nobody was ordained in Jesus day or after.  No priesthood ordinances, etc.

But priesthood is like the temple endowment. Examples are all through the NT but it requires accepting the connection.  Which brings it back to how we view scripture.  If you don't think it's a priesthood item you won't see evidence of priesthood.  If you think it relates to priesthood then you will.

[snowflake]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

And again, there is no evidence Yeshua was a Levite.

Correct, he was from the line of Judah, Matt: 1 Luke, 3.

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Further, in the early Gentile Church, non-Levites held the priesthood

Who received the priesthood, from whom, where?

 

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hebrews says Melchizedek was a priest

Many Biblical scholars consider Melchizedek to be a type of the coming Christ. The writer of Hebrews uses the incident  of Melchizedek blessing Abraham(together with a prophecy from Psalm 110), to demonstrate the superiority of the priesthood of Christ to that of the Levitical system (Heb. 7:4-10). I 1 Peter 2 says all believers will be members of a royal priesthood. Read Hebrews 7,8 and 1 Peter 2. The old law and priesthood is done away with per Hebrews for a better and new covenant in Jesus.

[snowflake]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes and no.  It defines who you consider to be priesthood bearers, but it doesn't define what priesthood is or what acts directly relate to being a member of the priesthood. 

See the claim is nobody was ordained in Jesus day or after.  No priesthood ordinances, etc.

But priesthood is like the temple endowment. Examples are all through the NT but it requires accepting the connection.  Which brings it back to how we view scripture.  If you don't think it's a priesthood item you won't see evidence of priesthood.  If you think it relates to priesthood then you will.

Fair enough, and I agree with a lot of what you say here.

When I was LDS all the terms in the NT "power, ordain, laying on of hands" I interpreted it as "priesthood power, priesthood ordinations, priesthood laying on of hands" etc. My LDS goggles turned the language into what I wanted it to say. But the text never says "priesthood" power, et.

Jesus was from the line of Judah, he couldn't have the Aaronic priesthood by birthright per the law of Moses. Along with most of the other Apostles who were not Levites, I think only Barnabas ( who wasn't officially an Apostle) was a Levite.

Really dig into Hebrews 7 and 8, a new covenant and a new Priesthood are restored, all in Jesus, he is the only High priest in the new covenant.

 

[snowflake]

Just now, snowflake said:

But priesthood is like the temple endowment. Examples are all through the NT but it requires accepting the connection.  Which brings it back to how we view scripture.  If you don't think it's a priesthood item you won't see evidence of priesthood.  If you think it relates to priesthood then you will.

I hear this often, can you give me some sources about how priesthood is like the temple endowment? Thanks

 

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know how other Churches interpret "keys of the kingdom"

Quote

The expression "power of the keys" is derived from Christ's words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church. For a consideration of the text in its dogmatic bearing, see POPE; PRIMACY. In the present article our sole purpose is to give a brief historical account of the meaning attached to the expression by ecclesiastical writers....

The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes 

• the power of order, namely power exercised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament, 
• the power of jurisdiction, and 
• the power to define in questions of faith and morals. 

The various powers thus conferred upon the Church were held to belong either to the clavis potentioe or to the clavis scientioe, the latter of these two being understood to signify the power to teach, while the other departments of authority pertained to the clavis potentioe. The distinction is, however, a theological refinement, and is not involved in the expression itself. As Francisco Suárez urges, Christ, when using the plural form, did not intend to indicate that the gift was twofold. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

Claves meaning keys..

Edited November 9, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, stemelbow said:

k.  Not really what I'm after here though. 

If you’re looking for a concession that Joseph made it all up as opposed to having the knowledge revealed from God,  I don’t think you’re going to get that from any faithful, believing Latter-day Saint. You can’t impose a paradigm of unbelief in our theology and expect to get anywhere in a discussion. It’s the fallacy of the loaded question as in “Are you still beating your wife?”  

Edited November 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

I know that lots of protestants view it similar to the way that LDS view it (only they don't believe that the keys needed to be passed on or that they are necessary today)-that Christ was giving Peter authority to administer HIs gospel to the world.  Some  protestants teach that the keys are symbolic of spreading the gospel and that all believers have them.

Catholics view it similar to the general definition that LDS adhere to as well, but the only keys they (if i understand right) believe exist are the key to bind and the key to loose, and these are held by the pope.

My hunch is that the old sectarian legend about St. Peter guarding the “pearly gates” comes from the scriptural account of Christ bestowing the keys on Peter.