The Corporation © we call a "Church"

 

When reading posts on Facebook and Reddit and other discussion boards, you often come across terms such as "Morg" and "TSCC" ("The So Called Church"). Why do these people refer to the Mormon church with these terms and what do they mean? Well after some digging around I soon discovered that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", is no longer a "church" and has not been since 1890, when the US government disincorporated it.

The actual "church" that Joseph Smith established back in 1830 no longer exists as such. What we think of as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (hereafter referred to as "The Church™"), exists today as a trademark, owned by a subsidiary of a corporation known as "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

So technically, there are no members of "The Church™", despite the common usage whereby people call themselves members. The actual church that used to go by that name, and which claims Jesus Christ as its head, does not exist today in any legally recognised form.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's look at the history...

An economic history of this organisation:

In 1830, the Church of Christ was established by Joseph Smith. This original church underwent several name changes during the 1830's, including the Church of the Latter Day Saints (1834) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (April 1838).

In 1851, Brigham Young, by legislation of the State of Deseret, incorporated what then became known as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (adding a hyphen and lower case 'd'). Over the next 40 years, the church's leadership embarked on many money making enterprises:

In 1870, Brigham Young publicly announced a revelation for Mormons to invest in a railroad. In 1881, John Taylor privately dictated a revelation to organise an iron company.

In 1883, John Taylor dictated another revelation to invest tithing funds in a gold mine.

In the 1890's the hierarchy gave various men the religious 'callings' or obligation to invest thousands of dollars each in a sugar company.

By this time, the Twelve Apostles were now much too busy to to go forth throughout the world and spread the gospel message of Christ - their original divine mandate. Instead, they needed to stay home and spend all their time managing literally hundreds of church owned businesses. These leaders were partners, officers or directors in more than 900 Utah-area businesses. They owned wool mills, cotton factories, 500 local co-ops, 150 stores and 200 miles of rail-road. Not content with just running these enterprises, when occasionally faced with competition, they insisted that church members patronise LDS-owned businesses. It was virtually impossible by this time to find where the division lay between ecclesiastical and monetary interests.

This focus on the financial over the spiritual was starting to take its toll on the church. According to Brigham Young, Jnr, it had all gone too far: “There is too much time given to corporations, stocks, bonds, policies, etc. by our leaders to please me,” he wrote in his diary, “We are in all kinds of business interests. Even the members of the Twelve represent businesses which are jealous of each other and almost ready to fight each other.” (Michael D. Quinn: Mormon Hierarchy - Extensions of Power ^[1])

Eventually this theocratic control over politics, economics, and resources in the west became too much for the U.S. Congress. In 1887 it passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act. This act disincorporated the LDS Church on the grounds that it fostered polygamy and gave the federal government power to confiscate all church assets, including the Salt Lake temple and all of Temple Square.

The provisions of this Act were later upheld in the 1890 Supreme Court ruling Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, when the U.S. government went ahead and confiscated LDS Church property, including tithing money donated by members (real estate such as churches and temples was never seized, though the Edmund-Tucker act allowed for such seizures), and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as a legal entity, simply ceased to exist.

Additionally, the LDS Church had borrowed extensively to finance a variety of infrastructural developments (e.g. gristmills) and after the 1893 financial crisis the LDS Church was unable to make timely payments on their loans; Wilford Woodruff, Church President from 1889-1898, privately expressed doubt that the church would ever pay its debts.

By 1898, when Lorenzo Snow took over as Church president, the church was $2.3 million in debt. So President Snow re-emphasised the payment of tithing (giving 10% of one's income to the church) - previous to this, tithing was paid in goods and was not enforced. Additionally, the Mormon leaders offered up the future tithes of the Mormon people as guarantees against their investments. Thus the members of what used to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became the main source of primary income. In addition, the LDS Church issued bonds backed by the labour of Utah residents.

Around 1900, the office of Trustee-in-Trust was reformed.

As a result of the changes made by President Snow, by 1907 the church was completely out of debt and since then has not used debt to fund its operations, even for capital projects. e.g. the recent $2 billion City Creek Mall project (some estimate -> $5 billion) was fully funded without any borrowings or capital venture.

To protect it's fast growing financial interests, the church then organised several tax-exempt corporations to assist with the transfer of money and capital. These include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organised in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property.

At this point we need to ask...

What exactly is a "corporation"?

A corporation is an organisation chartered by the state and is given many legal rights separate from its owners.

"A corporation is a creature of the state...It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitation of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and ascertain if it has exceeded its powers" (Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43)

"Corporate existence is a privilege granted by the sovereign upon compliance with specified conditions." (Smith and Roberson's Business Law)

This poses a problem for a church that is considering to incorporate, because in the church, Jesus Christ is supposed to be the sovereign. When application is made to incorporate a church, the will of Jesus Christ becomes subordinate to the will of the state. "To become a corporation in effect divorces the church from Christ." ^[2] In other words, a church that incorporates no longer can claim separation from state.

In America, churches automatically operate in a sphere separate from the state. Governments have no jurisdiction in the church whatsoever. There is no tax advantage for a church to incorporate, as some mistakenly believe. But there is if that church actually wants to operate as a business. Then it can trade its sovereignty in exchange for special privileges granted by the government.

So in 1923, after the church lawyers found a rare, little known, and hardly ever used mode of incorporation known as The Corporation Sole, the President of what used to be the LDS church incorporated the "Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations.

Under this corporation sole, all financial power was vested in one man, the prophet, or as he was named in the corporate charter, “the President” of the church (the word “Prophet” doesn't appear anywhere in the charter - this is now a corporation, not a church).

The president of this corporation could do whatever he wanted with the member's money without asking permission from the members whatsoever. This president needs no authorisation from any mere member of the Lord's church. No show of hands, no vote, no “all in favour please manifest.”

Succession

Also written into the charter of the Corporation of the President as amended was how the line of succession was to operate within the church. In order for there to be no question as to who held the purse strings following the death of the President (the “Sole” in a ”Sole Corporation”), the Senior Apostle automatically becomes the next president of the Corporation.^[3]

Wait a minute...what??? I always thought growing up, that the next "Prophet" could be any of the Quorum of the Twelve, and it had nothing to do with who was in the most senior spot. So if God (for some reason) did not want the most senior (longest serving) apostle to become the next prophet, e.g. Boyd K Packer at the time of writing, He could technically "inspire" the entire Quorum to sustain ('vote') in another.  

Wrong! The line of succession is outlined in the state approved charter - the longest called living apostle (President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) will ALWAYS become the President of the church upon his predecessor's death. God's will isn't mentioned anywhere in it.

So while the process of "by common consent" revealed in D&C 26:2 is a well known principle, it is also a legal process written into the Constitution of the Corporation of the church. The rules for succession of the president of the church are also written into this Constitution ^[4].

So, this "church" is really a corporation. It is chartered as a corporation, and it behaves like a corporation. Before they were called to their positions of leadership within "The Church™", most of the 1st Presidency & the Twelve Apostles (directors) made their livings as lawyers and businessmen in the corporate world. They are in these positions because the talents and skills they developed on the outside are needed on the inside.

When each of them get called to serve in this corporation, even though they believe it is ecclesiastical in nature, they would soon learned that things are run here very much the way things were run in the corporate world they left.

Thus, the areas that the corporate Church tends to focus on are, by and large, the same things any corporation lends its attention to: Growth, Image, and Control.

Especially damage control to its image. Notice that in the early LDS church, the spokesman for the church was called a Prophet. Today the press is continually quoting a “church spokesman” who turns out to be someone from the Public Relations department.

Also note that in "The Church™" today, members can be called to Public Relations "callings", specifically to "grease the wheels" - i.e. to promote the good name of "The Church™" to those in power within the community - namely politicians, other corporations, social groups etc, and to sway political favour on issues such as building projects (Temples, malls, etc).

That is just how a corporation works. It is not what most people would expect from a church that claims Jesus Christ as its head. If Jesus Christ was the head of this church, He would have His spokesman speak for His church, not some flunky from the PR department whose job it is to act as a buffer to protect the prophet from potential embarrassment.

Funding

January 1st 1990 was the day "The Church™" dropped all pretences.

From that day on, it was announced, all tithing monies collected from local congregations would be sent directly to Church headquarters, and "The Church™" would then dispense a portion back to the wards. This was all sold as a more efficient way of running things. But it turned the traditional church of Christ on its head, requiring the members to send in their money to a corporate entity that was far removed from them and which became the sole judge on how contributions would be spent. Nothing about the doctrine of common consent was mentioned in the announcement.

President Hinckley and Elders Packer and Monson announced the news at a priesthood satellite broadcast. The details were sketchy, but the new program, said Monson, “eliminated the need for local units to raise budget money as their...expenses are now funded almost entirely from general Church funds.”^[5]

Now "The Church™" would fund everything through a “ward budget” it dispensed, based in part on attendance at Sunday services. The tithing slips now read (as of 2012), “Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the church’s property and will be used at the church’s sole discretion to further the church’s overall mission.”

And by "the church" they mean "the Corporation". The general Mormon membership were not included in those decisions, because they are not members of "The Church™".

Finally, in 1997 "The Church™" incorporated Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IIC) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, all media and other copyrightable assets, including all Church owned websites which end with "© 2014 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.", and of course...the trademark "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ©". 

"The Church™" also holds several non-tax-exempt corporations, such as Bonneville International and the Deseret News - see below.

Conclusion

So "The Church™" is really a profit making corporation, with a corporate structure, paid directors and corporate by-laws. It:

• Controls at least 100 companies or businesses that generate in excess of $3 billion a year through direct contributions, dividends, trusts or investment income.
• Never borrows money to finance its acquisitions. It pays cash, out of its members' contributions and its business income.
• Has become one the US's largest private landowners, with holdings in all 50 states.
• Has a stocks and bonds investment portfolio in excess of $3 billion.
• Appoints spiritual leaders who double as business leaders.

Current estimates are it brings in over $7-8 billion each year on tithing alone (with another ~$3 billion annually from business ventures below) and owns ~$35-$40 billion in temples and church buildings, real estate and corporate enterprises.^[6]

Because of it's corporate nature and legal structure, what we today call "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ©" no longer exists as a church - it is purely a trademark owned by a subsidiary corporation (IIC), which is owned by the "The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

And so now you know why it is, that bloggers and forum users (outside of the LDS membership) refer to "The Church™" as the "Morg" or "TSCC"!


Addendum - Church Finances

In researching the corporate side of things it was hard not to be exposed to copious amounts of material on the financial side of things.

As a result, I now plan to make this the topic of a future blog, but for now... As mentioned above, it is estimated that "The Church™" brings in approximately $11 billion annually from tithing donations and its many business ventures. In addition it owns ~$35-$40 billion in temples and church buildings, real estate and corporate enterprises. Additionally, the church is registered as a charity, and as such, receives tax exemption from the US government, and is not required to disclose its finances. 

So, what does "The Church™" do with all those billions? Well it does cost money to send out Sunday lesson materials (print, DVD, and so on), build and maintain temples and chapels, and funds missionary efforts (partially). Estimates are between $3-4 billion. However, it also invests in many corporate profit making enterprises. The church's holdings include (#):

• AgReserves Inc. - the largest producer of nuts in the United States (circa. 1997)
• Beneficial Financial Group - An insurance and financial services company with assets of $3.1 billion.
• Bonneville International - the 14th largest radio chain in the U.S.
• Deseret Management Corp. ($1.2 billion in annual receipts)
• Deseret News - a daily Utah newspaper, second-largest in the state of Utah.
• Deseret Trust Co.
• Ensign Peak Advisors - a multi-billion dollars investment fund management company
• Farmland Reserve Inc. - 228,000 acres (923 km²) in Nebraska,; 51,600 acres in Osage County, Oklahoma; and over 312,000 acres (1,260 km²) in Florida (dba Deseret Cattle and Citrus).
• Hawaii Reserves, Inc. - Miscellaneous church holdings in Hawaii. When combined with the Polynesian Cultural Center (the leading paid visitor attraction in Hawaii) and Brigham Young University-Hawaii, LDS Church-related entities generated revenue of $260 million for the Hawaii economy in 2005.

Rarely does the monies donated by the membership go to humanitarian efforts such as feeding the hungry or clothing the poor. Based on what "The Church™" does donate comes down to approx. 0.5% of annual earnings.

“By the time the money comes back from the Church Office Building, [The Church™] has generously tithed to the needy from its multi-billion dollar revenue stream something on the order of one percent, often in used, tattered clothing and rice and wheat and so on...For all its bluster and public relations about humanitarian aid, The Corporation, in other words doesn't follow its own rule of tithing. I would not be surprised, if more was spent on PR than on those good works which are PR'd before men.” [Daymon Smith, a former Church Office worker]

Lay (non paid) ministry?

Although the LDS Church is largely run by a lay clergy, most General Authorities work full-time and receive salaries from the Corporation of the President.

There are at least 150 or so leaders in the LDS Church that are paid, such as the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, First Presidency, and the First Quorum of the Seventy and the Second Quorum of the Seventy. On top of that are a little over 400 mission presidents that receive compensation from "The Church™" for a total of approximately over 550 paid church leaders, not counting Church employees. (Aside, it is purported that each new member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, at time of accepting their new position, is given one million dollars to take care of any financial obligations they have - see here).

These corporation directors "1st Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve" spend the member contributions on expensive meals, cars, credit card accounts, and generous salaries that they have chosen to refer to as “modest allowances” or “stipends.”

According to one source, in the mid 1990's (twenty years ago) "The First Presidency and Twelve Apostles were paid $600K a year and the Seventy were paid about $120K". Today, estimates are that the highest leaders are paid anywhere from $400,000 to $4,000,000 per year ^[7]. In addition, in the members of the First Presidency each have unlimited, unaudited charge cards. Hinckley lived in a million dollar condo with servants all provided by Church funds (the house that the current president of the corporation lives in is said to be valued at $2.1 million, which he did not purchased with his own money). General Authorities have significant other benefits like vacation retreats owned by "The Church™" down by St. George and in Oahu, free tuition in Church colleges for their families, world-wide travel pretty much any time they want"....this is arguably appropriate for someone assisting in the management of a $100 billion corporation.

These company directors apostles serve on the boards of the many varied multi-billion dollar for-profit entities owned and run by the Corporation of the President, such as those listed above.

All of these multi-billion dollar operations are under direct control of the Corporation of the President, who himself allocates board control to his fellow Apostles and Presiding Bishops, and whose stocks and shares are distributed among the many General Authorities. Most, if not all, of the finances and ledgers (profits, assets, investments, payments, etc.) of these corporations are closed to public scrutiny by deliberate design from "The Church™" (i.e., the Corporation Sole of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), making disclosure on board payments nearly impossible to discover.

For more information on Church finances, see "How the Mormons Make Money" and "How Mormon General Authorities are Paid", as well as the links proceeding this article (below).

Links:

Wikipedia: History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Wikipedia: Finances of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Wikisource: Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (136 U.S. 1)
Corporate structure and succession
Daymon Smith - The Book of Mammon
How Corporatism Has Undermined and Subverted The Church of Jesus Christ
How the Mormons Make Money
MormonThink: Tithing in the LDS Church

The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power - D.Michael Quinn

D. Michael Quinn, a former research assistant to the Church Historian's Office, has accumulated many sources to paint the history he portrays. He shows the reader that the "church" as it is structured today with defined Priesthood offices and responsibilities was not how it always was. These offices evolved over time and as such required previous revelations to be revised and events from the past to be retroactively documented to fit Joseph Smith's evolving concept of "church" and authority.

Quinn then moves onto the succession crisis after the death of Joseph Smith and how there were MANY valid succession claims, each with considered merit. The problem being that Joseph Smith never felt the need to declare his replacement as he believed he would usher in the millennium and there would be no need to prepare a replacement any time soon (despite the fact he named various men as his successor over the years).

Half the book (as with all Quinn books) is made up of footnotes and sources. As Joseph Smith himself stated "No man knows my history" and this rendition is Quinn's (informed) version and subject to rare cases of personal conjecture. However, whatever your view, you cannot fault his research efforts.

In summary, this book, provides evidence that the early LDS church had no qualms in rewriting history to hide or change previously recorded events that either contradict the current doctrinal standpoint, or past accounts that undermine their authority claims as God's true church.

Highlights for me:

Organising a Church

• The concept of "church" evolved over time - early revelations rejected the idea of an "organised" church (p.5). D&C 4 rejects the need for Priesthood authority - instead, "faith, hope, charity & love" qualifies someone to represent God (p. 6).

• Book of Commandments Section 10: Joseph Smith was commanded to translate Book of Mormon and be granted "no other gift". This revelation was later altered to indicate this was the first of many gifts, justifying Joseph Smith setting up a church and his many future roles (p. 9). 

• The church was organised in Manchester (not Fayette) as recorded in the 1833 Book of Commandments (later edited) (p. 296).

Priesthood

• No evidence for angelic visitations restoring the Priesthoods found prior to 1835. Instead, lots of evidence that there was no need for priesthood (pp. 15-27).

• Footnote #141: Joseph Smith defined the office of "Elder" as the highest church office in 1830. Then the office of high priest became the highest office in 1831. In 1843, the office of patriarch was declared the highest office in the church. After Joseph Smith's death, Brigham Young defines office of Apostle the highest authority on earth  (p. 317).

• In 1843, the Melchizedek priesthood was extended to women through an endowment ceremony, rather than ordination to a church office (p. 36).

Bishop

• D&C 107 requires a man to be ordained a high priest before he could be ordained a bishop. However, Edward Partridge served as a bishop without high priest ordination - as the office of high priest did not exist until 4 months after Partridge was ordained a bishop (p. 70).

Apostle

• In 1830, "Elder" was the highest office in the Church ("apostle" was not an ordained office until 1835). Instead, an "apostle" was one who had visions, specifically, an original witness of the Book of Mormon: 1 (Joseph Smith) + 3 witnesses + 8 witnesses = 12 apostles (pp. 11-12).

• Prior to 1832, "apostle" was a term referring to missionaries (p. 57).

• According to Brigham Young, he and Heber C Kimball were ordained Apostles in 1835, but they were Elders only - they were not ordained to the high priesthood (pp. 30, 351).

• Apostles in 1835 had no authority to ordain or set apart any Stake offices. As stated in revelation, the Twelve apostles had no authority where there was a Stake High Council (p. 57).

• The Twelve apostles had no jurisdiction in a Stake, but were a travelling high council instead, to preside "where there is no presidency established". This was retroactively replaced later by Brigham Young with "where there is a presidency established" - where "presidency" is referring to a Stake (p. 59).

• The Twelve apostles were far from next in line to the 1st Presidency (in 1836, they were ranked 6th) (pp. 60-61).

• D&C 107:22-24 Apostles were NOT to choose the 1st Presidency (rather were on equal standing with the 1st Presidency). The stake high council has higher power than the Twelve within Zion (pp. 157-158).

• The Seventy were also ordained apostles according to Brigham Young (p.68).

Patriarch

• The Patriarch gave patriarchal blessings to the fatherless. Otherwise, it was fathers who gave these blessings to their children, unless they granted "permission" to the Patriarch. This policy later changed (p. 52).

• John Young Snr. was ordained Patriarch in Aug 1834 before Joseph Smith Snr. who was ordained Patriarch on 6 Dec 1834 (not 18 Dec 1833 as recorded in official history) (pp. 46-47).

• Joseph Smith's 1833 priesthood plan for Zion excludes any reference to Apostles or Patriarch (p. 50).

The Danites (pp. 93-103)

• Joseph Smith discusses killing an anti-Mormon (Grandison Newell) - June 1837 (p. 91).

• Quorum of the Twelve president Thomas B Marsh is excommunicated for speaking out about the Danite atrocities (p. 97).

• Motivation for the Bogg's extermination order and the attack on Haun's Mill was from the Mormon actions in the Battle of Crooked River, where Mormons attacked and killed State troops (p. 100).

• Statement by Joseph Smith justifying breaking God's commandments (e.g. killing a man - leading to the concept of Blood Atonement) (p. 112).

• The above view justifies Orrin Porter Rockwell shooting Boggs. Two accounts testify Joseph Smith authorised it (p. 113).

Martydom

• Joseph Smith, while in Carthage Jail sends orders to the Nauvoo Legion to come to Carthage and free him (June 26th). This was ignored, unbeknown to Joseph Smith. When on June 27th, 250 men approached Carthage Jail, Joseph Smith made comment they were the men coming to rescue him (p. 141).

• Footnote #197: Contrary to the account given in History of the Church, Joseph Smith jumped out the window of Carthage jail prior to being shot. Once on the ground, he was propped up against the well, stabbed with bayonets, shot and killed (p. 374-375).

• Joseph Smith prophesied a year before his died he could not be killed within 5 years of that time. In addition, the temple would be completed before he died - an assurance direct from the Almighty. Early Mormons believed Joseph Smith would usher in the Second Coming, hence no need to plan a succession (p. 144).

• Joseph Smith in the day and weeks leading to his death disbanded the Council of Fifty, asked all minutes destroyed, told the brethren to destroy their temple garments and was to abandon polygamy (pp. 145-148). Opinion is that he was ditching the controversial aspects of his regime to avoid prosecution and/or acknowledge he had gone too far.

Succession

• Hyrum publicly designated as Joseph Smith's successor ("by birth-right") - July 1843 (p. 55).

• Emma publicly promotes William Marks, president of the Nauvoo High Council, as successor (both are anti-polygamy). Note the Stake High Council have higher authority than the travelling Twelve apostles (p. 159).

• The History of the Church is edited after Joseph Smith's death, adding a line to counter the 1st Presidency's power over the Twelve (p. 161).

• Footnote #117: Heber C  Kimball testifies of Brigham Young's transformation into image of Joseph Smith…but was not even present!!! (p. 394)

• Brigham Young ordained 400+ men to the office of seventy, transferring them from previously held Stake overseen offices (deacons, teachers, priests & elders). Now there were 35 quorums of Seventy, transferring 2500 men from stake jurisdiction (High Council) to the Twelve - the Seventy were under the jurisdiction of the Twelve in accordance with the 1835 revelation. Thus, most priesthood holders were now under Brigham Young's jurisdiction. Brigham Young also called 80 high priests to leave Nauvoo & preside over branches, thus putting them under the authority of the Twelve. Three months later he repeats this with another 50 high priests (pp. 174-175).

• 4 Feb 1845, Brigham Young calls the Council of Fifty for the first time since 1844, not inviting those who opposed to him, who were subsequently dropped, along with all non-Mormons (p. 176).

• Brigham Young wants to form a presidency separated from the Quorum of the Twelve, thus separating the Apostles from church governance. Many meetings are held and many votes in opposition (pp. 245-249).

• Brigham Young & his counsellors are never ordained or set apart. Lorenzo Snow is the first president to be set apart and NOT ordained (1898). Not until 1951 does David O McKay becomes the first President to be "ordained" (pp. 252-253).

• In 1875, Brigham Young demotes 2 senior apostles (Orson Pratt & Orson Hyde), making John Taylor next in line. However Brigham Young does not sustain him as President of the Twelve due to previous conflicts. Brigham Young (who dies in 1877) had no intention of letting John Taylor become the next President (p. 254).

• The senior apostle was not automatically the next Church president - there was a push to have younger apostles take on this mantle (p. 255).

• In 1970 (the death of David O McKay), it is proposed that Joseph F Smith NOT become the next president due to failing mental state and health, and instead ordain Harold B Lee.  The Twelve entertain this idea. However, Smith does a deal with Lee who supports him as President and Lee becomes 1st counsellor. However the first phase of this idea is ratified in 1978 when the "emeritus" status is introduced to the Seventy for failing health/mind members (pp. 257-260).

• Footnote #47: From 1835, seniority in the Quorum of Twelve was by age, with changes in this occurring through to today being longest serving quorum member (p. 456).

Miscellaneous

• Prior to 1835, no mention of Elijah in accounts of Joseph Smith history. Instead, in 1838, Joseph Smith added a previously unknown 1823 revelation into the Moroni visitation story, regarding Elijah and the concepts of restoring "keys" (p. 35).

• Joseph Smith performs marriage in Ohio (Nov 1835) - the bride was undivorced and Joseph Smith held no licence to do so (p. 88).

• Joseph Smith violates the laws in regards to performing marriages. Other Mormon ethics involving counterfeiting, stealing, threats, physical attacks, killing, bribery etc (p. 89).

• Word of Wisdom revelation encourages the use of "mild drinks" made from barley…in other words…beer! (p. 619)

• Joseph Smith "translates" the Kinderhook plates, later confirmed to be a hoax (so what did Joseph Smith mean then by "translate"? (p. 638)

• Adam introduced in 1839 as the archangel "Michael" and as supreme key to authority (p. 36).

• John Smith, Assistant 1st Presidency member was in charge of the migration efforts from Missouri to Illinois, NOT Brigham Young, as emphasised in official Church History (pp. 63-64).

• "Wards" were established in Nauvoo & were political boundaries. They became ecclesiastical boundaries later in Salt Lake City (pp. 72-73).

• The pre-1842 view was separation of church and state. This reversed in 1842 (p. 111).

• Everyone who received endowments in the Nauvoo Temple were added to the "Anointed Quorum" and attended a prayer meeting in temple. They were also members of the "First Quorum". However once they numbered in the thousands (within weeks) the temple could no longer accommodate them and this practice ceased (p. 537).

• Brigham Young announces the Millennium has already commenced (p. 178).

• Eleusium Mysteries (1837) describe most aspects of the temple ceremonies (p. 626).

• In 1845, curses are added to the endowment ceremony, against the murderers of Joseph Smith (p. 179).

New Mormon Essays

Below is a list of the recent essays published by the church on controversial topics. All of these can be found (if you look hard enough) on www.lds.org.

1. They cover topics not previously found by doing searches on lds.org, and are undated.
2. They admit to the many things raised by questioning members, which were previously flatly denied as true. In fact many of the things admitted in these new essays were previously considered apostasy and grounds for excommunication if preached to others. 
3. The topics raised come a long way to acknowledging the truth, still come nowhere close to answering the hard questions.

Essays:

• First Vision Accounts: lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts
• Are Mormons Christian?: lds.org/topics/christians
• Book of Mormon Translation: lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation
• Race and the Priesthood: lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
• Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo: lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo
• Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah: lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah
• Book of Mormon and DNA Studies: lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies
• Becoming Like God: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god
• Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints: lds.org/topics/peace-and-violence-among-19th-century-latter-day-saints
• Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham: lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham

Over the coming weeks I plan to look into each one and address the positives and the negatives (from my point of view).

The "restoration" of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods - Addendum

When researching my previous blog on the restoration of the Priesthood, I relied heavily on knowledge I gained back in Dec 2006 (when still a TBM) from reading the book "Power From On High" by Gregory A. Prince. My Amazon review on this awesome book is here.

However, with the goal of keeping that post from being too verbose, I excluded a lot of (what I consider) interesting details gained from reading this book. This addendum post is to cover off on these extra points, starting with...




In the earliest days of the Restoration, only three office existed: Teachers, Priests and Elders/Apostles (p.26). There was no such separations as the two priesthoods we have today.

Aaronic Priesthood

• The term "Aaronic Priesthood" not never used in the church until 1835. Additionally, there is also no mention of visitation of John the Baptist prior to 1835.

• The office of Deacon was not found in the Book of Mormon. It was introduced to Joseph Smith by Sidney Rigdon (an ex-Campbellite minister). It was first mentioned in 19 April 1831 (p.26). The addition of the office of "Deacon" was added to previous revelations (including D&C 20). It also appears to be an afterthought - it had no specific duties other than to assist Teachers (p.69).

• Passing of the sacrament was never mentioned as a duty of a Deacon in Joseph Smith's lifetime (p.70).

• Teachers and Priests shared responsibilities as in Book of Mormon. Both could perform baptisms. The only distinction was that priest only could bless the sacrament (p.50).

• Ordination prayers for Priests and Teachers were prescribed by the Book of Mormon (1830, Moroni 3) - were later discontinued. Both offices had authority to baptise (1830, Alma 15:13) - (p.12).

• Teachers, not High Priests, Elders or Priests, presided over a branch. Bishops did not preside over congregations until the Utah period of LDS history (p.52).

• Book of Mormon states only Elders could ordain other offices (1830, Moroni 3), but by 1831, Priests also could ordain Deacons, Teachers and Priests (p.22, see footnote 71).

• The office of Bishop has no precedence in the Book of Mormon. It was most likely introduced to Joseph Smith by Sidney Rigdon, prior to the office of High Priest - in 1831 (p.63).

Melchizedek Priesthood

• The term "Melchizedek Priesthood" was not used until 1835 (with no mention of a visitation from Peter James and John prior to 1835). Before then terms such as "High Priesthood" and "Order of Melchizedek " were used. The term "High Priest" was not used until 26 April 1832 (p.19).

• While the first recorded mention of "Melchizedek Priesthood" was John Corrill's account of the 3 June 1831 conference, this was written in 1839 (p.17)

• For the first year after the organisation of the Church (1830), Elder was the highest ordained office - no Bishop (until 1831), Patriarch (in 1833), Seventy or Apostle (both in 1835). Once the other offices were introduced, Elders duties were reassigned to the higher offices. e.g. in 1831 revelation, Elders hold court, but in 1835 a new revelation states that Elders are NOT to hold courts, but instead Bishops (p.55).

• The office of Seventy was introduced and conferred to the brethren involved in the failed Zion's camp (1835). This nature of this office and duties were ambiguous for the next 100 years (p.76).

• A revelation in 1835 stated that the Seventy formed a quorum equal in authority to the twelve apostles. In May 1835 Joseph Smith stated that more seventies would be called "even until there shall be 144,000". An 1832 revelation  proclaimed the 144,000 were high priests.  In 1837 it was stated that Seventies were to be taken from the Elders quorum, and not be High Priests (p.77). Confused...?

• Sidney Rigdon is credited with introducing the office of High Priest. While there is mention of ordinations to the "High Priesthood" in June 1831, these men were still Elders (p.70-71).

• Oct 1831, "High Priesthood" was an order of Elders and referred neither to the office of high priest nor to an umbrella organisation encompassing several offices. Over time, the term became synonymous with the office of High Priest (late 1831) and eventually with the expression "Melchizedek Priesthood" (1835), which by then was 5 offices (p.157).

• In the "Articles of Faith" (1842) it mentions "Pastor". This became an ordain office within the Priesthood, but not until 1856 in the British Isles by Apostle Franklin D Richards. In 1861, the name of this office was changed to "District President" (p.48).

• The office of Apostle required the recipient to see the face of God: "...it is necessary that you receive a testimony from Heaven for yourselves, so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon. And that you have seen the face of God. ... Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid his hand upon you." (p.59) In 2010, I was personally interviewed by an Apostle, Elder D. Todd Christofferson, I told him of this requirement of his calling. He told me he had gone into a grove of trees to pray for a witness...and got nothing. Weeks later, while watching TV, a warm feeling came over him and he knew, this was the answer to his prayer...really??

• Apostles had no rights to regulate Stake matters - that was the High Council's role. But later the Twelve were "not subject to any other than the First Presidency" (p.61).

Restoration complete

• 7 July 1834 - Joseph Smith states the organisation of the church is now complete (p.24).

• 30 Mar 1836 - Joseph Smith stated that he had "completed the organisation of the Church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies." (p.34)

• 1 April 1836 - Joseph Smith receives the vision of Elijah - with the restoration of the sealing keys (p.35).

• "Elijah holds the Keys of the Authority to administer in ALL ordinances of the priesthood and without the authority is given the ordinances of the priesthood could not be administered in righteous." And yet...Elijah did not appear until April 1836. Result? Elijah introduced anachronistically into previous revelations, including the 1823 Moroni visit and mention of sealing the hearts of the children to the fathers etc. Even though the Bible revisions had been completed, Malachi 4 is quoted by Moroni with this extra wording! (p.36-38)

Baptism

• In 1840, for baptisms, "by immersion" was expected, although non-total immersion was acceptable in the eyes of God (p.85)

• Baptisms were also for healing and for remission of sins. Joseph Smith (and others) for example was baptised many times (p.92).

• Originally, those who were not baptised could rise no higher than the Terrestrial Kingdom (Revelation dated 16 Feb 1832). Then in Jan 1836, Joseph Smith receives a vision where he sees his brother Alvin in the Celestial Kingdom, thus establishing that belief alone was sufficient for salvation, not baptism. It was not until August 1840 that the concept/doctrine of Baptisms for the Dead was introduced. (p.87).

• Prior to the vision of 1832 defining the 3 degrees of glory, Joseph Smith had revised 1 Corinthians 15 in the course of "retranslating" the Bible, making changes in verses 26, 27 and 31 but none in verse 29 which speaks of baptism for the dead (p.88).

Other points worth mentioning:

• "Wards" were originally political units (as in today) and did not become ecclesiastical units until Utah (p.65).
• Congregation "sealed" to eternal life (p.20).
• No known record of anointing with oil before 1835 (p.103).
• There are documented recorded instances and justification for self-administration of consecrated oil (p.105).
• The term "Temple" referred to a single building to be built in Zion (Missouri). After 1838, after it was apparent that the saints could not maintain a permanent foothold in Missouri, the term "temple" was applied to other buildings (referred to as the "House of the Lord"). (p.122)
• Patriarchal blessings given by Joseph Smith Sr 1836 states "power over death", i.e. the recipient would not die (and yet they did). (p.152)
• Parley P Pratt prophesied that Joseph Smith would appear at the completion/dedication of the Nauvoo temple in 1846 (2 years after his death)...but he didn't (p.153).
• The "Washing of Feet" was a separate ordinance during 1832-39. the "Second Anointing" was then introduced and incorporated this ordinance, although in a different format (p.173-4).
• 24 out of 64 patriarchal blessings (by Joseph Smith Snr) promised the recipient that the Second Coming would occur before their death...but it didn't...(p.177)

"For thus shall my church be called..."

The Problem:

Growing up in the Church, I was always puzzled by the lengthy name it went by. Why not just call us "The Church of Jesus Christ"? Serving a mission, we'd explain to investigators that the "of Latter-day Saints" moniker made complete sense as it was "to distinguish the Church in the last days (today) from the same church in ancient times"...why??? Does that even make sense? Should we now change the name to "The Church of Jesus Christ of the 21st Century Saints" to distinguish us from those backward 19th century pioneers?

Regardless of what we know the Church to be called today, the fact is, the Church changed it's name many times during it's early years. Originally the Church of Christ, then later The Church of the Latter Day Saints, and finally The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So why the many name changes? Surely God (who is omnipotent) could foresee any issues with each name and reveal the final name to Joseph Smith in 1830?

Of course, on the other hand, if there was no God involved and it was all made up by men, one might still expect a single name (do you see the Scientologists changing their name?). But as was typical for Joseph Smith, any ideas he had would either evolve with further knowledge or due to circumstances beyond his control, necessitate changes, often retroactively, to combat those problems.

So what was the church called, when was it changed, and why the changes?

1830 - Church of Christ

The church was organised on April 6th, 1830, and according to the revelation recorded in D&C 20 was referred to as the “Church of Christ” and was called this for the first four years of its existence. This correlates with The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 27:7-8) where it specifies that it was to be called after Christ's name.

The problem with calling the church, the "Church of Christ" is that there were other churches around at that time already using this name (see "Church of Christ (disambiguation)").

1834 - Church of the Latter Day Saints

22 January 1834 - A letter of the First Presidency of the Church, noted “the organization of the Church of Christ, or the Church of the Latter Day Saints, on the 6th of April, 1830” (History of the Church 2:22).

17 February 1834 - We read the “Minutes of the Organization of the High Council of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, Kirtland, (History of the Church 2:28), employing a name nearly identical to the one used today.

3 May 1834 - Kirtland was the scene of “a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ” at which “a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of 'The Church of the Latter Day Saints.' Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote” (History of the Church 2:62-63). This name change, unlike the others, did not come as a result of revelation, but by vote.

So who's idea was it to change the name? According to David Whitmer, it was Sidney Rigdon who pushed Joseph Smith to change the name to "Church of the Latter Day Saints":

In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it THE CHURCH OF CHRIST until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon 1887.)

So why the name change? According to Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn:

Apr 23, 1834 - A revelation ends the Kirtland United Order and distributes its real estate assets among Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Martin Harris, Newel K. Whitney, and John Johnson. Although the revelation says, "it is my will that you shall pay all your debts," Smith requires Whitney to absorb the $1,121.31 Whitney had loaned to him personally as well as $2.484.22 of other men's debts to Whitney. Ten days later the name of the church is officially changed from "The Church of Jesus Christ" to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints" possibly to avoid law suits. (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power).

Joseph Smith probably thought that since the contracts specified the original name of the church, if he changed the name of the church, the debts wouldn't apply any more...and if this was indeed what he thought, he would have been wrong on this count (not that being wrong ever stopped him from carrying out a "divine" plan).

1838 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

On April 26, 1838, the Lord speaks again to Joseph Smith and reveals a new official name he has come up with for the church, which has remained ever since: “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (D&C 115:4). It's somewhat odd that in the Book of Mormon, the Lord made a point to instruct the Nephites on what the Church should be named, and as shown above it was a different name to the one he revealed to Joseph Smith. It's also reasonable to assume that Christ would have informed Joseph back in 1830 the final name He wanted the Church to be called, not wait until 8 years later to come up the official name...!

So why add "Christ" back into the name of the church? Also from D. Michael Quinn:

Apr 26, 1838 - A revelation changes the official name of the church, this time to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Kirtland dissenters had claimed that Joseph Smith apostatized and became the anti-Christ in 1834 when he changed the church's name to delete reference to Jesus. (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.628)

1838 was a period of trial for Joseph Smith and the church, with many prominent followers excommunicated and speaking out against him accusing him of being a false prophet. Adding "Jesus Christ" back into the name was likely an attempt to give Joseph Smith some credibility back that he was actually the Lord's chosen for leading God's church. 

1851 - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

In 1851, Brigham Young incorporated the LDS Church by legislation of the State of Deseret under the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a lower-case "d".

1887 - Church legally disenfranchised by Edmunds-Tucker act

In 1887, the Edmunds-Tucker act disincorporated the LDS Church on the grounds it practised polygamy, of which this act explicitly prohibits. This act dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000.

1923 - Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Under the direction of President Joseph F. Smith, the church organised several tax-exempt corporations to assist with the transfer of money and capital. These include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property. In 1923, the church incorporated the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations. In 1997, the church incorporated Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IIC) to hold all the church's copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.

This will be to topic of a future blog, but for now, be aware that technically, there is no such "church" called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" - it is purely a trademark owned by the subsidiary IIC, which in turn is owned by the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is owned by the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The church as a "church" has technically not existed since 1890. As such, since you cannot be a member of a trademark, to say you're a "member of the church" is not entirely accurate. I will cover this in more detail in the coming weeks.

Summary:

• 1830: The Church of Christ was the name of the Lord's church. However, there were many other churches also sharing this name.
• 1834: The name changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. This was most likely an attempt to thwart debts owed by the "Church of Christ" via the Anti Banking Society debacle.
• 1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is revealed by direct revelation. This was during a crisis where Joseph Smith authority was in question by many dissenters. This revelation restores "Jesus Christ" to the church's name.
• 1851: The church is incorporated by Brigham Young.
• 1887: The church is legally disincorporated by the US Government.
• 1923: The "church" becomes a corporation with the name becoming a trademark, not a religion.

Conclusion:

At the end of the day, for me at least, it's not really important WHAT the church is called - I can find no mention in the New Testament of a "name" for the church of Christ. What a person or organisation does or believes is far more important than what they call themselves. My issue is that it must have been important to God for He felt the need to declare the name via direct revelation to Joseph Smith (at least twice).

The main issue raised here is the fact that the inspired name of God's true church changed multiple times, which is not indicative of a Church led by an unchanging perfect God. So, one must accept that either:

1. God changes His mind time and time again, without prejudice or, more likely, 
2. Joseph Smith was not an inspired prophet of God when he named the church (and renamed it and then renamed it again). 

The latter would seem the more plausible option.

Aside:
Regardless of the discussed changes above, the intention to give the Church a divine name has failed - most people I know outside of the Mormon religion, have no idea who "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is. The "Mormon Church" on the other hand is well known the world over, a nickname derived from the title of the Book of Mormon. 

Links:

MormonThink - The Name of The Church
D. Michael Quinn - Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power
Wikipedia - Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
FairMormon Answers - Changes in the name of the Church

The "restoration" of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods

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.

References:

For examples of the passages in the D&C added or altered after 1834, see Fabricating The Mormon Priesthood: By God Or By Man?
Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt 1 Dan Vogel (YouTube video)
Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt 2 Dan Vogel (YouTube video)
MormonThink - Priesthood Restoration

Addendum:

See http://flawsinmormonhistory.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/the-restoration-of-aaronic-and.html

The Book of Mormon "translation" pantomime

Carrying on from my previous post on the “translation” of the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon, one thing that has always troubled me, is how Emma would describe that JS could just resume translation at any time and “begin where he left off without any hesitation”. He was thus able to verbalise the entire book, word for word without backtracking or correcting what was previously dictated.

So how did he dictate one continuous speech equating to the text of the Book of Mormon, without gaps or disjointed sentences? 

First, let’s look at the facts:

1. The accounts we have from eyewitnesses on the BoM "translation" process vary. One account will make reference to a specific method/process of "translation" that is completely different to another eyewitness’s account. So in reading one account one cannot assume that's how the whole book was "translated" - Emma herself contradicted her earlier statements when older.
2. Regardless of who was acting as scribe at any time, no one ever saw the golden plates present. In fact eyewitness accounts describe the plates were often covered in the corner of the room or not even present (sometimes even buried outside in the field). Hence, this was not a "translation".
3. The first 116 pages were produced using the “Urim and Thummin” and it was mostly this portion that Emma assisted in translating (along with Martin Harris). This has been described as JS sitting at a table with a blanket raised between JS and the scribe [1]. Thus, if JS was hidden from view, whatever was being dictated could possibly have been sourced directly from notes (although I think this is unlikely).
4. The rest of the BoM (what we have today) was translated via the “seer stone” (“a chocolate-colored, somewhat egg-shaped stone”[2]) he found on his neighbour’s (Willard Chase) farm in 1822. JS would read out lines while his head was buried in a hat. Again, the golden plates were not used nor required. This process was witnessed by both David Whitmer [3] and Oliver Cowdery.
5. Most of the BoM account we now have, was scribed by Oliver Cowdery [4] - He described how he “wrote with my own pen the intire book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the Lips of the prophet”[5]. This affirms that JS did not need to collude with many scribes [6]. Oliver Cowdery incidentally was JS's second cousin [7]. 

Now let’s pose a few possibilities:

1. As suggested above, during the times that there was a blanket between JS and the scribe (e.g. Emma), it’s quite possible he could simply been reading from a wad of foolscap. This method is in question, as Emma also reflected later that the translation took place via the head in hat method, which contradicts her earlier account. Personally, the risk of being caught would outweigh the likelihood this theory is valid.
2. JS would memorise a page of manuscript at a time beforehand. So the head in the hat process was JS reciting what he had just memorised. 
3. The manuscript was already written (or transcribed in private), and the pages dictated in front of others were only for show, and not used. I believe this is the most likely, especially considering the significant portions of word for word KJV Bible passages.

Conclusion:

My view is that most of the "translation" process took place behind closed doors and hence could be simply a transcribing process by Oliver Cowdery. This would also explain why there are significant sections matching the exact (and unique) wording of the 1796 edition of the KJV of the Bible (which were later corrected in subsequent editions of the KJV). 

In the cases where there were other scribes or witnesses, this process was purely for show, to deceive, EXACTLY as in the past when JS used THIS SAME METHOD (head in hat with peep stone) to deceive his neighbours that he was able to see hidden treasures. The small amounts of translations done during these periods were either later discarded, or if were kept, were previously memorised portions.

Of course, all of this aside, as previously posted, why would God require all this smoke and mirrors to bring forth his "marvellous work and a wonder"? Why make the plates at all if they were not used? Why create and preserve a "Urim and Thummim" that was never used for the end product we have today? Why so many errors from a divinely inspired translation (apparently God is ignorant of acceptable English grammar)?

Instead of utilising a "translation" process that creates all the dilemmas above, a 100% accurate translation could have been produced many other more "Godly" ways:

1. Transform the characters on the golden plates into a language anyone could transcribe (e.g. Hebrew, or wait...English!!). Then have any faithful servant (or many!) perform the work directly from the plates that anyone could translate and verify! 
2. God could snap His fingers and produce a perfect translation out of thin air - no issues with lost translations, mistranslations, incorrect grammar or questionable translation methods.

So either, God has failed once again in producing the "most correct book on earth", OR, me thinks instead...(wait for it)...JS simply made it all up!

So for now, cross off yet another Church History question from my list!

Notes:

[1] Wikipedia - Golden plates

[2] B. H. Roberts - A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
[3] "I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing." (An Address to All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p.12)
[4] "Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory." - Church History In The Fulness Of Times Student Manual, (2003), 52–66
[5] Journal of Reuben Miller, Oct. 1848, Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
[6] How the Mormon Church Created the Cowdery Myth
[7] GENEALOGY OF OLIVER COWDERY

References:

The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation

Dan Vogel - Joseph Smith's magic spectacles - transcript
Translation of the Book of Mormon