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.
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…"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):
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:
“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 2 Dan Vogel (YouTube video)
MormonThink - Priesthood Restoration
No comments:
Post a Comment