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?

 

 

[AmericaUnited]

That just sounds wrong, like most of the Bible

Now I tend to think it is 99.9% correct, with the .1% due to translation errors.

[DeLaVerdad]

That just sounds wrong, like most of the Bible : )

That's blasphemous. The Bible is God's Word and supercedes the "new revelation" found by Joseph Smith. God is incapable of lying so anything that contradicts his first word, the Bible is false. If you think the Bible is such a lie, then why is it that all of the "Mormon" commercials on TV offer a FREE King James Bible or a story of the Biblical nativity on DVD to get people to receive a book of mormon? I'll tell you why - it's because mormonism is a cult and cults operate on deception and secrecy. Jesus tells us "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) A church or a "religion" will not get you eternal life - only Jesus will.

[DeLaVerdad]

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

It's EXTREMELY different - otherwise we wouldn't bother to defend it so vehemently. Mormons teach that non-mormons are the "wolves in sheeps clothing" - but it's really the other way around. Mormonism is a false doctrine that totally contradicts Christianity in so many ways and is dangerous lie to the Christian faith. Everything from what you believe about how one obtains eternal life to our future positions in heaven. Never ever say we are alike. You have stolen the name of Jesus Christ and put it on your sign but everything you all teach opposes the true gospel of Christ.

[LeGrande]

It's EXTREMELY different - otherwise we wouldn't bother to defend it so vehemently. Mormons teach that non-mormons are the "wolves in sheeps clothing" - but it's really the other way around. Mormonism is a false doctrine that totally contradicts Christianity in so many ways and is dangerous lie to the Christian faith. Everything from what you believe about how one obtains eternal life to our future positions in heaven. Never ever say we are alike. You have stolen the name of Jesus Christ and put it on your sign but everything you all teach opposes the true gospel of Christ.

I am an Atheist. I just like to poke fun at the Anti Mormon Cabal members around here : ) You and I agree on 99% of the Gods (or lack thereof).

[LeGrande]

That just sounds wrong, like most of the Bible : )

That's blasphemous. The Bible is God's Word and supercedes the "new revelation" found by Joseph Smith. God is incapable of lying so anything that contradicts his first word, the Bible is false.

LOL So you believe the Bible is the absolute literal word of GOD? How funny. Lets start off with the easy stuff. Which of the Ten Commandments are the correct ones?

Jesus tells us "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) A church or a "religion" will not get you eternal life - only Jesus will.

Wasn't Christ a bastard? What kind of example is that to set for our young people? You don't really believe in that virgin birth stuff do you? I have heard some women make that claim though, but I don't really believe them : )

[DeLaVerdad]

I am an Atheist. I just like to poke fun at the Anti Mormon Cabal members around here : ) You and I agree on 99% of the Gods (or lack thereof).

Interesting on the atheism. I appreciate your lightheartedness (the ongoing smiley faces) but when it's something as serious as ones eternal destination I am more serious on the matter. To answer your question, yes, I believe the Bible 100% and I believe in the virgin birth of Christ. I wondered about God's existence at one time and had doubts so I finally decided to ask Him. If you seek him you will find him. What if in the end, you are wrong? What's the payoff? Have you read the Bible with a mustard seed of faith? If you open your heart and mind to it you might be amazed at what the God of the universe decides to show you. It's pretty awesome. Enjoy.

[LeGrande]

If you seek him you will find him. What if in the end, you are wrong? What's the payoff?

I have sought and not found.

So the question became, do I live this life in ignorance and superstition or do I open my eyes and strive to see things as they really are? In short do I take responsibility for my own life. I decided to take responsibility for my own life.

If I am wrong and you are right about God, then I am willing to go to hell and take it like a man. I think I will like the company in hell better anyway.

[DeLaVerdad]

I can see that you are a thinker and that's a good thing. When you say "I have sought and not found" what specifically did you seek? Did you seek God himself, the person of God? That's what I was referring to. I can definitely tell you from my own journey that it is impossible to love someone you don't actually know. When I started reading scripture I did not know God personally. But it was through reading the Bible that I learned supernaturally who God is. Then I fell in love with him. I fell enough in love with him that I could accept the cost that came with following him, and there are many. Contrary to what some may think, Christianity isn't about butterflies and cherubs and fantasy.

There's no questioning you when you say that we are all called to take responsibility for our lives and to see things as they really are. "Truth" is the most important attribute of Christianity for me and I had a previous history of immersion into several different religions, including Mormonism, because of the diversity that is my family. That's why at some point I finally had to ask God himself, if he even existed. And when I sincerely and humbly asked, he answered. I'm not sure I really wanted to know before then but I like absolutes and wanted the certainty of knowing that what I said I believed I actually did believe. I didn't want to falsely defend a religion that I was wishy washy about.

As far as hell - it's not the party you think it's going to be. Hell is eternal separation from God and a pit of flames doesn't sound like much fun to me. Heaven is described much differently.

Would you consider reading the book of John in the Bible with a truly open mind? Or just pray and see where God leads you. He knows your heart as it is today and he's perfectly fine with you admitting your unbelief to him. Maybe you'd consider asking him to prove you wrong and then seeing what happens... I pray you'll think about joining us at the real party! :) (now there's a reason for a smiley!)

[DeLaVerdad]

ps - just did a word search on "eternal" in the Bible and there are some powerful verses for you to consider

check them out at this link http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?section=0&showtools=0&version=niv&word=eternal&st=1&sd=0&new=1

[count-your-change]

I'd go for some fillet du Whitecastles, sans cheese, along with a fine aged Lambrusco but that's just my more refined tastes. High threes and fours all around and we're livin’ large.
People may and often do disagree with the Bible but its proven trustworthy and reliable despite it's critics.

[LeGrande]

Would you consider reading the book of John in the Bible with a truly open mind? Or just pray and see where God leads you. He knows your heart as it is today and he's perfectly fine with you admitting your unbelief to him. Maybe you'd consider asking him to prove you wrong and then seeing what happens... I pray you'll think about joining us at the real party! :) (now there's a reason for a smiley!)

Been there, done that. I know the scriptures reasonably well and I really do appreciate many of the teachings in them. Our society wouldn't be what it is today without the Bible (I am talking about the good things).

I tried the spiritual route and found it wanting, what more can I say? I am happy for you if you have found joy in the Lord, that is a good thing. As for me, I delight in family and friends and discovering light and truth in this world, the only fear of death that I have is the sorrow that it may bring to my family and friends and the joy it may bring to my enemies : )

[LeGrande]

I'd go for some fillet du Whitecastles, sans cheese,

LOL Those are terrible hamburgers that I used to supplement my diet of popcorn when I was in college : )

along with a fine aged Lambrusco but that's just my more refined tastes.

Well I will match your Lambrusco with a Bud, but you are right, it isn't the food, it is the company.

People may and often do disagree with the Bible but its proven trustworthy and reliable despite it's critics.

If you say so : ) Others may disagree.

[count-your-change]

Whitecastles and Bud? Don't think you'll have much company unless their olfactory abilities are nearly dead.

[LeGrande]

Whitecastles and Bud? Don't think you'll have much company unless their olfactory abilities are nearly dead.

Isn't Budweiser being bought up by some German company?

[count-your-change]

Belgium I think. A good beer drinking German would be embarrassed by Bud but Belgium? Some their stuff is at least as good as Bud.

[Osage Orange]

Moose cheese is better..........

[Osage Orange]

Dude....your bota bag has Bud in it?

Ugh...

: )

[count-your-change]

Moose cheese? How to milk a moose? Quickly and carefully.

[LeGrande]

Dude....your bota bag has Bud in it?

Geez, I don't even drink. Somehow the conversation got turned to WhiteCastles and wine.

I take water and keep refilling it with snow on the approaches. Sometimes I might add lemonade if I am tired of water, but the water here is probably the best I have ever tasted. New York's water oddly enough is good too.

[Osage Orange]

I’m sure it depends on where you drank, in N.Y.