Problem:
Have you ever wondered
why a church that is so pedantic about it's processes, the exact wording of it's rites and ceremonies, record keeping and dates, has absolutely no date recorded for when the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored?
This priesthood authorises all men who serve within the Church to act in the name of the Lord, and specifically gave Joseph Smith the "power and authority" to restore the Church in its fullness. A significantly important event such as this would be commonly known amongst the early members and be recorded somewhere in officially published or
personal accounts, and would include the date and location this occurred (and I wager it would no doubt be a date that would coincide with some significant Biblical
event, such as "the same date Peter, James & John ascended the Mount of
Transfiguration").
But alas, this is NOT the case. Nowhere within the meticulously recorded history of the church can we find the date of the
restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. As you will
discover below, not only is there no recorded date to this day, this event along with the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, was completely unknown prior to 1834. In fact, no one had even heard the expressions "Aaronic" or "Melchizedek" relating to priesthood, until after this point in time.
Facts:
Amongst the many histories,
diaries, letters or writings of church members, there is absolutely no mention of any priesthood, until several years after the
Church had already been restored. David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the
Book of Mormon, said, "I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph
and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834… I do not believe that
John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…" There
are countless of similar testimonies (before 1834) by early church members who repeatedly
heard Joseph Smith recite the visitations of the angel Moroni, but never the other
angelic visitations.
You would think if Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery received personal visitations of the ancient apostles,
they would have written or at least mentioned something
about the experience soon thereafter. Nope - no date at all and nothing mentioned nor recorded at all
for the next 4 years following the restoration of the Church. No mention at all of the appearances of John the Baptist, nor Peter, James and John.
So what priesthood offices did we have prior to 1835? We know that when the Church was first established in 1830, we had Elders, Priests and Teachers, but these were not considered as offices with the priesthood as they are today.
The introduction of the "high priesthood" (1931):
The concept of higher or lower offices within the priesthood did not exist within the Church until the June 1831 conference, when Joseph Smith announced for the first time, there was a “high priesthood". The original accounts of this 1831 conference have generally since been edited to indicate the participants (including Joseph Smith) were instead ordained to "High Priests". But as stated, this term was not used until 1835. According to these original records, Joseph Smith himself received the high priesthood under the hand of Lyman Wight. This would indicate that he did not believe he had not yet received the high priesthood before that time (1831).
It was not until late 1834, that Joseph Smith introduced the concept of "priesthood authority". So why introduce this at that time, and risk creating the problems raised in this article?
The crisis of 1834:
"When Joseph and Oliver began mentioning their angelic ordinations in late 1834 and early 1835, they were facing a credibility crisis that threatened the church's survival. In late 1833 a group in Kirtland, Ohio, denounced Joseph Smith for ministering "under pretense of Divine Authority." They employed D. P. Hurlbut to investigate Joseph's past, hoping to bring him down "from the high station which he pretends to occupy." Hurlbut traveled to Palmyra, New York, and collected affidavits from residents about Joseph's early treasure seeking and other aspects of his youth. Hurlbut began a lecture tour starting in January 1834 to "numerous congregations in Chagrin, Kirtland, Mentor, and Painesville; and ... [he] fired the minds of the people with much indignation against Joseph and the Church." Finding disillusionment spreading among the Saints, Joseph and Sidney Rigdon began preaching against Hurlbut. It was under these circumstances, exacerbated by problems associated with the failure of Zion's Camp--the paramilitary trek to assist fellow Saints in Missouri--that Joseph mentioned for the first time in public that his priesthood had "been conferred upon me by the ministering of the Angel of God."
"By May 1834, Joseph’s Pennsylvania in-laws had issued similar affidavits about Joseph’s treasure digging and his supposed motivations for starting Mormonism. Howe published all of these in his book in November 1834. Meanwhile, Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph’s assistance and sensitive to the negative impact of the recent disclosures, decided to write “on the subject of those affidavits.” Oliver’s first refutation, published in the October 1834 Messenger and Advocate, included the narrative of being ordained by an unnamed angel. Shortly thereafter, this angel was identified as John the Baptist. Simultaneously, a statement about Peter, James, and John appearing to Joseph and Oliver was added to an earlier revelation. This information appeared in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Thus, by degrees, the accounts became more detailed and more miraculous. In 1829 Joseph said he was called by the Spirit; in 1832 he mentioned that angels attended these events; in 1834-35 the spiritual manifestations became literal and physical appearances of resurrected beings. Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened. These new declarations of literal and physical events facilitated belief and bolstered Joseph’s and Oliver’s authority during a time of crisis. No contemporary narrative exists for a visitation to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James, and John. In fact, the date, location, ordination prayer, and any other circumstances surrounding this experience are unknown." An Insider's View of Mormon Origins - Grant Palmer
Introducing two orders of Priesthood:
According to David Whitmer, it was Sidney Rigdon who introduced Joseph Smith to the concept of two Priesthoods and the office of “High Priest”:
“Now Brethren, seeing they had no High Priests in the church of Christ of old, and none in the church of Christ in these last days until almost two years after its beginning — when the leaders began to drift into error; remembering the fact of the revelation being changed two years after it was given to include High Priests;…
In no place in the word of God does it say that an Elder is after the order of Melchisedec, or after the order of the Melchisedec Priesthood….This matter of ‘priesthood,’ since the days of [Sidney] Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. …This matter of the two orders of priesthood….all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire and as mouthpiece speak out the revelations just as they had it fixed up in their hearts…How easily a man can receive some other spirit, appearing as an Angel of Light, believing at the time that he is giving the revealed will of God…..” (An Address to All Believers in Christ, page 64).
Rewriting History:
Once the new concept of 2 distinct priesthoods was made public, to facilitate the new organisational change, all previously published versions of LDS history which mentioned someone being ordained “to the high priesthood”, were later changed to read “to the office of high priest” or “as a high priest”. When the 1835 edition of Doctrine & Covenants (the successor to The Book of Commandments) was compiled, new revelations were added, and existing revelations had additions made referencing this new priesthood. e.g. The revelation regarding the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood was added at this time [1].
This is a major issue for me. How can one receive a revelation, record and publish it, then many years later, ADD critical new content that had somehow been forgotten the first time it was recorded, and in most cases, changes the meaning of the original revelation??
As David Whitmer stated: "Is it possible that the minds of men can be so blinded as to believe that God would give these revelations – command them to print them in His Book of Commandments – and then afterwards command them to change and add to them some words which change the meaning entirely? As if God had changed his mind entirely after giving his word? Is it possible that man who pretends to any spirituality would believe that God would work in such a manner?" (Saint’s Herald, February 5th, 1887)
It would also seem reasonable
to expect that the priesthood, as a necessary authority to establish and
direct the Lord’s church, would clearly and frequently be mentioned in many of
the divinely inspired canon of the Church - the Book of Mormon, Book of
Commandments etc. A quick search reveals…nope, nothing, zip, zilch (The Book of
Mormon contains the term “high priesthood” in Alma and does not mention Deacons
at all, while the Book of Commandments names Apostles and Deacons but no
"High Priesthood". They both contain absolutely nothing on the Aaronic
or Melchizedek Priesthood).
Instead, God’s actual words to Joseph Smith in the Book of Commandments (BC) and the Book of Mormon makes it clear that the
original revelations Joseph
Smith received were “true and faithful” (BC 1:7), “neither doth He vary from that which He hath said”
(BC 2:1) and “now the decrees of God are unalterable”
(Alma 41:8). However, it is also clear that significant changes and additions were made. So what
then is the only possible conclusion...?
Conclusion:
Let’s assume that the events currently
recorded in Church history – the latest First Vision account and the two distinct Priesthood
restoration events, are the truth - they happened exactly when Joseph Smith claimed they did.
What would be the result? We would expect to have recorded accounts (official
and personal) prior to 1834 and also expect the official revelations received prior to
1834 to be complete and unchanged (as if from the mouth of the unchanging God Himself). We'd expect such a momentous event to have been discussed with every new potential convert (as it is today).
However, on the other hand, let’s just suppose for argument's sake that the First Vision and Priesthood restoration
events etc. never happened,
and instead, Joseph Smith came up with the idea years after they
were supposed to have happened. What result would we expect then? Exactly
what we have today – no recorded accounts prior to 1834
and revelations received prior to this date being changed later to reflect this
new ideology.
The simple fact is that Joseph Smith never believed he needed any kind of “priesthood” or “keys” to have authority when he initially "translated" the Book of Mormon and later set up the church. This “requirement” only came years later when he needed to address credibility challenges. One would assume that authority granted directly by God is sufficient to do anything in His name.
So, what's the only rational conclusion one can make in regards to the priesthood restoration events as currently taught by the LDS Church? Joseph Smith, once again, when necessity dictated, fabricated a lie and thus, the whole LDS religion and its foundation on priesthood authority from on high, is...simply not true!
Notes:
[1] There
are seven revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) on these
priesthoods. Although five of them were allegedly received before October 1832,
one as early as 1823, and one as late as September 1832, none of these five
were included in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Two of them did not appear in
the D&C until the 1876 edition, three were first included the 1835 edition.
Addendum:
See
http://flawsinmormonhistory.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/the-restoration-of-aaronic-and.html
