The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods Part 2(LDS) OPEN

Mormon Matters ^ | July 7, 2008 | John Nilson

[greyfoxx39]

As a child, I heard the story of the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods this way:

 

In May of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the woods about baptism and had John the Baptist appear to them, put his hands on their heads, and recite the following, currently found in D & C Section 13: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…”

 

Some time later, Joseph and Oliver again were in the woods and John, James, and Peter appeared to them, put their hands on Joseph’s and Oliver’s heads, and restored the Melchizedek priesthood.

 

Certain details were fuzzy here, but I got the gist. Joseph and Oliver were ordained like every other 12 year old boy I knew, even dressing up for the occasion, as Church art depicted. (Can you imagine an imageless Church manual? We would have to use our own imaginations!)

 

I later majored in history at BYU, where I learned to distinguish primary from secondary sources, and to assign relative weights of reliability to certain primary accounts over others based on many factors like whether the person writing was an eyewitness to the events described, length of time between the event and its recording, potential motives of the writers, etc.

 

When I turned this rudimentary training on the sources describing the stories above, I found the records to be vague and contradictory, more so than in the case of Joseph’s different accounts of the First Vision. This is partly because Joseph had a co-participant, Oliver Cowdery, who left his own account of these experiences, and that many other early Church members wrote as if they did not hear of these ordinations until 1834 or 1835. Cowdery’s account is especially interesting, as he mentions only one occasion of priesthood bestowal, only one priesthood, only one angel visiting, and declines to name the angel as either John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. (Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. Compare to the wording here)

 

Parley Pratt, John Corrill, Lyman Wight, and David Whitmer each leave accounts which make it appear that the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood was first revealed to the church in a June 1831 conference, and was unknown before that time.

 

So where did our contemporary story of two separate priesthood bestowals come from? It appears that the line upon line development of church doctrine made clear after the organization of the church that two priesthoods, arranged hierarchically, were necessary for Church governance. Revelations included in the Book of Commandments (later renamed The Doctrine and Covenants) were edited later to include references to both priesthood bestowals. (Editing revelations was a common practice in the early years of the Church.)

 

B.H. Roberts of the Seventy even attempted to fix a timespan for the second bestowal of the priesthood to the period between the May 15 first bestowal and the end of June 1829, based on some conjectures flowing from assumptions based on the edited revelations (e.g. Section 27). This is likely where our sense of certitude on the subject comes from.

 

My questions are these:

 

Since I, and probably many others, were raised in the Church with the very definite, specific chronology for two separate priesthood bestowals, and this appears (although La Mar Petersen, Bill Hartley, and Larry Porter have attempted to rescue the Roberts chronology) to be highly questionable given the testimony of the sources, what do we do with this story?

 

Does the restoration of priesthood/authority need to have been a literal laying on of hands by resurrected beings in the same order in which 12 year old boys and 18 year old men experience it in the contemporary Church?

 

Does imagining that things happened this way make it easier for LDSaints to serve confidently in the Church, fulfilling their callings, learning to love God and their neighbor?

 

Could God have restored priesthood by an act of will, divine fiat?

 

Why do we rely on these stories as told and recounted in our secondary literature?

 

 

[greyfoxx39]

Part 1, detailing the claim of the LDS church that it has the only true Priesthood of Jesus Christ is posted in a companion thread.

This thread is open to general discussion.

[greyfoxx39]

Ping

[AmericaUnited]

In May of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the woods about baptism and had John the Baptist appear to them, put his hands on their heads, and recite the following, currently found in D & C Section 13: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…”

So my question would be... Did Joseph Smith live the life of an Aaronic priest since that time?

[AmericaUnited]

“reformed Egyptian” from which the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated from is as bogus as a $3 dollar bill. Don't dare flame me for this unless you can provide a link to ANY ME archaeological finds showing it actually existed.

[greyfoxx39]

I'm no longer mormon, so I don't defend the doctrine, but believe in bringing it into the light of day.

Pinging some mormons that may like to see an open discussion thread for a change.

[greyfoxx39]

From the Religion Forum Guidelines on the Religion Mod's home page:

Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected

Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.

On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”

When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”

Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.

Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.

 

RM's Home Page

[AmericaUnited]

Pinging some mormons Sigh...

Never a one has ever pointed to an archaeological dig from let's say Cairo that uncovered "Reformed Egyptian.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Never a one has ever pointed to an archaeological dig from let’s say Cairo that uncovered “Reformed Egyptian. ***

I believe someone here on FR showed some of the “reformed Egyptian” charactors were actually Gaelic shorthand of the 1700’s.

[LeGrande]

Never a one has ever pointed to an archaeological dig from let's say Cairo that uncovered "Reformed Egyptian.

Sigh... Must you anti Mormon Cabal members lie about everything? The scripture you are referring to clearly states that it is altered and known only to them.

Mormon 9:32-34:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.
33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.
34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

So why do you make the strawman argument that there has to be a similar written language, somewhere else? Especially when the account claims to be the only reference. That is a blatant misrepresentation in my book. Where I come from they call that lying. My sister invented her own written language for her diary so that no one else could read it. I think it was some form of shorthand but she still isn't talking.

I am more curious as to where the original Bible written in God's own hand is? What perfect language was it written in? Inquiring minds want to know? Are you going to tell me that the most important book in the world (in your mind at least) is missing? Horrors! Could it be that your book was written by goat herders after getting drunk on fermented goats milk?

[svcw]

Man, I would like to know why you sister thought it necessary to invent her own language to protect her private thoughts n her diary - was she protecting them from you perhaps?

[LeGrande]

Man, I would like to know why you sister thought it necessary to invent her own language to protect her private thoughts n her diary - was she protecting them from you perhaps?

Me? LOL It was her guilty conscience :) Actually I think she did it just because she liked that kind of stuff, crossword puzzles, cryptograms, math, etc.

[count-your-change]

Well, there is that funerary parchment that some how was “translated” into the Book of Abraham. Which is kinda of like “translating” a soup can label into a paperback novel.

[count-your-change]

Fermented goat's milk is called “cheese” and it may cause a lot of things but drunkenness is not one of them.

[AmericaUnited]

Those verses just make me chuckle out loud. By the way, from reading the book of Mormon, chapter 9, I get the DISTINCT impression that the author WAS BLATANTLY RIPPING OFF many verses straight from the New Testament. Has anyone ever found any proof whatsoever that the peoples/battles/tribes listed actually existed? I highly doubt it. Archaeological discoveries are constantly proving the authenticity of the real Bible.

And it came to pass in this year there began to be a war between the aNephites, who consisted of the Nephites and the Jacobites and the Josephites and the Zoramites; and this war was between the Nephites, and the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites.

My response is from the Book of AU.

AU 7:17-19:

17 And some of the Grande order will disputest thee with falsehoods but smiteth them back not.
18 For they are a confused and stubborn people, clinging to falsehoods and fairy tales from a charlatan.
19 Knowesth this, they maketh for good humor.

[LeGrande]

I am not familiar with the Book of AU (Masonic?) but I particularly liked the 18th and 19th verses.

18 For they are a confused and stubborn people, clinging to falsehoods and fairy tales from a charlatan.
19 Knowesth this, they maketh for good humor.

Sounds like good Atheistic reading material : ) and very descriptive of the Born Agains around here.

[LeGrande]

Fermented goat's milk is called “cheese” and it may cause a lot of things but drunkenness is not one of them.

It just depends on the bacteria that is used. Granted, Goats milk is low in sugar so it wouldn't be a very potent alcoholic drink, but you know goat herders, they are persistent buggers.

[AmericaUnited]

Book of AmericaUnited. LOL!

[count-your-change]

I’m glad I don’t have to depend on your cooking or your theology.

[LeGrande]

Book of AmericaUnited. LOL!

Heh, maybe our theology isn't so different : )

[LeGrande]

I’m glad I don’t have to depend on your cooking or your theology.

I resent that : ) My theology of lack of isn't important, but to besmirch my cooking, that is low. I'll have you know that I am a pretty good cook. Right now I am marinating some shrimp and slow cooking some pork ribs for our barbecue tonight. I am even putting on enough for my neighbors because I am sure that they will drop in for a visit right around supper time : )

That reminds me, I need to go put in the apple wood and check the temperature. I try to keep it right around 250 degrees. I can guarantee one thing though, we won't be drinking any fermented goats milk. That just sounds wrong, like most of the Bible : )