Cracking the Priesthood Paradox – Part 3

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED december 22, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

Now that we’re razed the unstable foundation of our false priesthood traditions, let’s examine how the priesthood actually functioned during the life of Joseph Smith so we can build on a solid foundation.

Let’s start with the most ignominious of priesthood offices in the LDS church today: Teacher. In today’s church, they can’t bless the sacrament, and usually don’t get asked to pass the sacrament. Their claim to fame is preparing the sacrament and cleaning up afterward. During the actual sacrament they might be allowed to stand by the chapel door. I’m not sure why you need authority from God to put water into paper cups or open a door, but hey, I’m not a prophet, seer, or revelator, so what do I know?

Not that most Mormons care, but this is so utterly inconsistent with the office of Teacher back when Joseph was running the church. In 1838, several of the Twelve Apostles traveled to Far West, deposed the stake presidency, and established themselves as the leadership of the stake. This was is clear violation of the role of Apostles, but that’s another issue. What is important is that after running roughshod over the local church, they quickly had to make peace with the locals. On February 24, a high council meeting was held which came to these decisions:

Resolved, by the High Council, that it be considered that no High Priest, Elder or Priest (except the Presidency, High Council and Bishopric) has any right or authority to preside over or take the charge of any branch, society, or neighborhood within the bounds of this Stake: but that the teachers, assisted by the deacons, be considered the standing ministry to preside each over his respective branch of the Stake agreeable to the covenants.

Resolved that we recommend to all High Priests, Elders, and Priests…that they do not take the lead of nor appoint meetings in any branch or neighborhood of Saints within the bounds of this stake without the invitation or consent of the presiding officer of that branch. We also, consider that the teacher, who is the presiding officer, has a right to object to any official character, who may come among them, to officiate…

Resolved that the High Council recommend to each neighborhood or settlement of Saints, within the bounds of this stake, to choose for themselves a teacher…to take the watchcare over them and preside agreeable to the covenants, who shall be assisted by the other teachers and deacons in the branch.

Resolved that ​each branch of this stake send one or more teachers once in three months to the quarterly conference of this stake, with a written account of the true situation of his branch, agreeably to the Covenants.

I was gobsmacked when I read this the first time. The teachers are the presiding officers, selected by the local congregation, and they have the right to tell the High Priests, Elders, and Priests to stuff it! That’s totally different than anything we’ve been taught in the last 150 years. Realizing that this was connected to the corrupt Twelve exerting authority where they had none, I thought maybe this was an anomaly. Then I found other statements supporting this.

In a meeting on July 6, 1838, Sidney Rigdon reinforced these roles, saying, “the foundation of the happiness of the church rests upon the heads of the Teachers and Deacons, whose duty it is to go from house to house and see that each family in the church is kept in order, and that the children are taught the principles of righteousness…He compared the Elder to quarriers of stone, who merely quarried the stones and brought them to the building, where the Priests, Teachers, and Deacons, are polishers, whose duty it is to prepare them for the building.”

John Corrill later wrote, “The high priests, elders, and priests were to travel and preach, but the teachers and deacons were to be standing ministers to the church. Hence, in the last organizing of the church, each branch of the church chose a teacher to preside over them, whose duty it was to take the particular charge of that branch, and report from time to time to the general conference of elders.”

Three years before Far West, the June 1835 edition of the Messenger and Advocate included this: “The Teachers and Deacons are the standing ministers of the Church, and in the absence of other officers, great things and holy walk are required of them. They must strengthen the members’ faith; persuade such as are out of the way to repent, and turn to God and live; meekly persuade and urge every one to forgive one another all their trespasses, offenses and sins, that they may work out their own salvation with fear and trembling.”

Once I saw the pattern here, I wondered if I could see that in the scriptures.

D&C 20:53-57
The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; and see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking; and see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty. And he is to take the lead of meetings in the absence of the elder or priest—and is to be assisted always, in all his duties in the church, by the deacons, if occasion requires.

D&C 20:81-82
It shall be the duty of the several churches, composing the church of Christ, to send one or more of their teachers to attend the several conferences held by the elders of the church, with a list of the names of the several members uniting themselves with the church since the last conference.

Teachers lead the meetings, watch over the local congregation, and attend a conference held by the elders to report on the local congregation. This is consistent other scriptures:

D&C 84:111
The high priests should travel, and also the elders, and also the lesser priests; but the deacons and teachers should be appointed to watch over the church, to be standing ministers unto the church.

If you’ve always been taught that Teachers are 14-year-old boys, this doesn’t make sense. When you learn the truth, that Teachers were adult men until Brigham changed it up in the 1860s, this all makes sense. During Joseph’s ministry, even during the dark days of Nauvoo, the Teachers and Deacons ran the local congregations and they were adults. This is consistent with the Biblical qualifications for a Deacon:

Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

There is no way anyone can claim the current Deacons quorums are a restoration of the Biblical quorums. They were when Joseph was running the show, but once Brigham started his “improvement era” we quickly disconnected from reality. And thanks to Russell, we now have 11-year-old boys serving as Deacons. Instead of Deacons ruling their children well, the Deacons are the children. (sigh)

Cracking the Priesthood Paradox – Part 2

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED december 21, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

In the previous post we introduced the scripture-based model for the Holy Priesthood and the offices and appendages to that priesthood. 

Let’s walk through LDS history and see how this developed.

“Aaronic Priesthood”

As mentioned in the first post, the term “Aaronic Priesthood” was not introduced until 1835, and was then applied retroactively. For example, in 1838 Joseph Smith wrote about the visit of John the Baptist. He wrote:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron…”

Notice he calls it the Priesthood of Aaron, because in 1838 that’s what people understood it to be. It’s like reading a history referring to New York City being founded in 1660. In 1660, it was called New Amsterdam. In 1666, the Dutch handed the city over to the British and it was renamed New York.  So what was the Priesthood of Aaron called before 1835?

In 1834, Oliver wrote an account of the encounter with John the Baptist, wherein John says:

Upon you my fellow-servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer this priesthood and this authority…

It is interesting to note that no account says that Joseph and Oliver were ordained to a specific office within the Aaronic Priesthood. Using our model, the office of Priest and the lesser priesthood are synonymous, and the offices of Teacher and Deacon are appendages. So whether Joseph and Oliver were ordained to the office of Priest or given the lesser priesthood, the net effect was the same. They had the authority to baptize. Here’s a scriptural proof:

D&C 107:20
The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

The whole reason John the Baptist appeared was because Joseph and Oliver wanted to be baptized and knew that required an ordination. Baptism is only administered by Priests in the Aaronic Priesthood, so the power and authority of the Aaronic Priesthood is the office of Priest. They are synonyms. The other offices in the Aaronic Priesthood are appendages:

D&C 84:30
The offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.

It’s important to note that at no time during Joseph’s ministry were Deacons and Teachers given authority to administer any ordinances. Priests were the only office in the Aaronic Priesthood with authority to administer ordinances.

The office of Deacon is also noteworthy. It is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, though it is in the New Testament (Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.) This office was created in 1831.

So the office of Priest is the Aaronic Priesthood, and within that exists the authority to ordain people to the appendages of Teacher and Deacon.

The office of Elder

Keeping in mind that the term Melchizedek Priesthood wasn’t introduced until 1835, look at how Joseph describes the next step in the revelation of the priesthood:

JS-H 72
The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first Elder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second.

Joseph wrote this 1838, well after the fullness of the priesthood had been lost. Notice that what Joseph and Oliver “would in due time” receive was the office of Elder, which is an appendage to the High Priesthood, not the High Priesthood itself.

On March 23, 1846, Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter in which he stated:

Had you stood in the presence of John, with our departed brother Joseph, to receive the Lesser Priesthood—and in the presence of Peter, to receive the Greater…

Notice what Oliver doesn’t write. He doesn’t say they received the Melchizedek Priesthood, he says the Greater [priesthood]. Is the office of Elder greater than that of Priest? Yes. But is it the Melchizedek Priesthood as defined by D&C 107 and 84? No, the office of Elder is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Here’s another proof:

D&C 107:63-64
Wherefore, from deacon to teacher, and from teacher to priest, and from priest to elder, severally as they are appointed, according to the covenants and commandments of the church. Then comes the High Priesthood, which is the greatest of all.

Elder is greater priesthood than Priest, but the High Priesthood (or High Priest) is the greatest of all. I think these nuances in language are important – there is a difference between greater and greatest. Unfortunately for Brigham Young, this part of Section 107 was recorded after Brigham had already been called to be an Apostle. Claiming the apostleship is higher than the High Priesthood is contradicting scripture. But I digress.

It would seem from the scant historical record that Peter ordained Joseph and Oliver to the office Elder, which is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood…enough authority to get the church up and running. The historical record makes it clear that the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood was not restored until June 1831.

Here’s some more data points:

D&C 20:2-3
Which commandments were given to Joseph Smith, Jun., who was called of God, and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the first elder of this church; and to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be the second elder of this church, and ordained under his hand.

In April 1830, Joseph and Oliver were ordained Elders and Apostles…yet by Joseph’s own account the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn’t restored until June 1831. How could this be?

D&C 20:38
An apostle is an elder.

An apostle is not higher than a high priest. An apostle does not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. Remember, the office of Elder is an appendage just like the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage. Peter holds the keys of the apostleship and the appendage office of Elder. It appears that Peter ordained Joseph and Oliver to that appendage office of Elder/Apostle, but he did not restore the Melchizedek Priesthood.

There is no record designating the time frame when Peter ordained Joseph and Oliver to the appendage office of Elder. It apparently happened after May 15, 1829 and before April 6, 1830.

In June 1829, Oliver Cowdery recorded a revelation he received, which became the Articles of the Church of Christ. In this revelation, the Lord tells Oliver, “I speak unto you even as unto Paul my apostle for ye are called even with that same calling with which he was called.” Oliver concludes his account of the revelation by stating, “Behold I am Oliver. I am an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” I take that as proof that Peter had conferred the office of Elder on Joseph and Oliver by June 1829.

The office of High Priest, or the Melchizedek Priesthood

As with much of the official LDS history, the explanations for the June 1831 revelation of priesthood are both true and false. SLC will admit that the office of High Priest was introduced here, but claims that despite what was written, the Melchizedek Priesthood had actually already been restored earlier by Peter, James, and John 1829. That is incorrect. As already shown, Peter restored the appendage office of Elder (aka Apostle).

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 1838
On the 3^rd of June, the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland…and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.

Let that sink in. The Elders are receiving the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood for the first time. That means these Elders didn’t previously hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. When you understand that the office of Elder is an appendage, this makes sense.

John Whitmer, History
The Lord made manifest to Joseph that it was necessary that such of the elders as were considered worthy, should be ordained to the high priesthood. The spirit of the Lord fell upon Joseph in an unusual manner…After he had prophesied, he laid his hands upon Lyman Wight to the High Priesthood after the holy order of God.

Lyman Wight, Journal
Here for the first time I saw the Melchizedek priesthood introduced into the church of Jesus Christ as anciently.

John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1839
The Melchizedek priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders.

Parley Pratt, Autobiography, 1874
Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God; which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness.

D&C 107:3-5
Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

When you discard the false model of Melchizedek Priesthood taught by the SLC church, this statements all become consistent. The Elders, who possessed only an appendage of the Holy Priesthood, now received the Melchizedek Priesthood, the fullness of the priesthood, for the first time.

The seeds of confusion

Unfortunately, Joseph’s introduction of the term Melchizedek Priesthood occurred during the downgrading of the church, after the fullness of the priesthood had been removed. The appendage office of Elder still existed, and because that was the only vestige of the Melchizedek Priesthood remaining in the church, the term Melchizedek Priesthood began to be used to describe the office of Elder.

On August 28, 1843, Joseph gave a sermon that discussed three priesthoods. According to James Burgess, Joseph said, “Abraham’s priesthood was of greater power than Levi’s, and Melchizedek’s was of greater power than that of Abraham.” According to Franklin Richards, Joseph taught this about the three priesthoods:

1st Levitical which was never able to administer a blessing but only to bind heavy burdens which neither they nor their father able to bear
2nd Abraham’s patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church
3rd That of Melchizedek who had still greater power, even power of an endless life

When you realize that the church in 1843 was not the same church in 1831, this statement makes sense. The Church of Christ ceased to exist in 1834. It was replaced by the Church of Latter Day Saints, which morphed into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1838. By 1843, the appendage office of Elder (aka the Abraham’s patriarchal priesthood) was the greatest priesthood experienced in the downgraded church. We have confirmation of this in D&C 124 where the Lord confirms the fullness of the priesthood had already been taken away.

Priesthood Cheat Sheet

Office	Alias
High Priest	Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God Melchizedek Priesthood
Elder	Greater Priesthood Patriarchal Priesthood Apostolic Priesthood
Priest	Aaronic Priesthood
Teacher / Deacon / Levite	Appendages to Aaronic Priesthood

Cracking the Priesthood Paradox – Part 1

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED december 20, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

Understanding the true nature of priesthood is challenging: there are so many contradictions in the scriptures, discourses and writings of early church leaders, and today’s traditions. Even the simple question of how many priesthoods exist isn’t obvious: SLC says two (Aaronic and Melchizedek), Joseph talked about three (adding Patriarchal), others say four (adding Apostolic). And don’t forget the Levitical Priesthood! Why is this so difficult?

There are several reasons. Joseph didn’t begin using the terms Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood until 1835. Before then, authority came from the office you were ordained to, not from a priesthood. What really made this difficult was that Joseph retroactively applied those terms when revising revelations for the 1835 D&C, as well as in his historical accounts and discourses. Making matters worse, this began after the fullness of the priesthood had been lost, yet they continued using terminology that had been associated with the fullness. Then the SLC church airbrushed the history to resolve challenges to Apostolic rule over the church, and created a new priesthood office of Apostle that was supposedly higher than a high priest. Add in over a hundred years of false tradition and it’s no wonder we’re all confused.

This has been gnawing at me for a couple years. I knew the SLC version wasn’t correct, but still couldn’t figure out the inconsistencies. Several accounts claim the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn’t restored until June 1831, yet prior to that men were being ordained Elders and members were receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I spent quite some time trying to unlearn everything I know about the priesthood, and walking though the historical records to piece together the progression of the priesthood, and trying to understand the shifting language used to describe it. I’m sure I’ve still got some things to learn, but I’ve made some major breakthroughs that explain the contradictions and harmonize many of the accounts. This does require purging all the traditions you’ve been taught about priesthood and starting from scratch. If you’re willing to commit to that, I’ll walk you through it.

There is only one priesthood (technically)

D&C 107:2-5
Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

That last sentence is critical. There is only one true priesthood authority – anything else is an appendage to it. To be specific, the office of high priest is that one true priesthood authority. We think of offices as things that are within the priesthood, but the office of high priest is the priesthood talked about here. It’s comprehensive:

D&C 107:9-10
The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church. High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.

You can have a fully functioning church with only High Priests. There is no other priesthood office that can claim that, not even Elders. Why even have other priesthood offices if all that is required are High Priests?

Appendages

APPENDAGE: Something added to a principal or greater thing, though not necessary to it, as a portico to a house.

This is from the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. I like the example of a portico. Most would recognize a portico as a part of a house, without truly being part of the house. The house can function without it, and indeed the portico may have been built years after the house was built, but if your portico was damaged, you’d likely consider your house to be damaged. But you could also decide to remove the portico and the house remains intact.

This concept is critical to understanding the other priesthood offices.

D&C 107:5
All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.

Let’s start with the easy one.

Aaronic

D&C 107:13-14
The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations. Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances.

The Aaronic Priesthood is not a separate priesthood, it is a subset of the one true priesthood. The High Priests already have the power to administer in outward ordinances such as baptism and the sacrament. Someone who has the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon them cannot, however, administer in the spiritual aspects of the priesthood. Their authority is limited to the specific subset of authority they have been given. It’s an appendage to the one priesthood.

When this was conferred upon Aaron, there were two subsets. The priests, or the sons of Aaron, had the authority to run all the ordinances in the temple, and one priest each year would be chosen as the high priest (still an Aaronic priest) to administer in the outward ordinances of the day of atonement. The Levites, those who were not of the priestly line, had a smaller subset of authority to help run the temple and assist with the sacrifices and such. But a regular Levite would never be eligible to become a priest.

We are familiar with the offices of Deacon, Teacher, and Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood. The good news is that those names are correct, but the function they played in the true church was dramatically different than what we see today. We’ll cover that in a future post. But here’s another important distinction:

D&C 84:26-27, 30
The offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.

Teachers and Deacons are appendages of Priests. The greater priesthood consists of High Priests, the lesser priesthood consists of Priests. All other offices are appendages. That means that Bishops and Elders are appendages to the office of High Priest, and Teachers and Deacons are appendages to the office of Priest.

Bishop

D&C 84:29
The offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

The office of bishop is a necessary appendage to the high priesthood. It is a specific subset of the High Priest’s responsibilities.

D&C 107:68-71
Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things; nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron; for unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot hold the keys of that priesthood. Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek, may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth.

Here’s where this gets really wonky. The office of Bishop is a hybrid. Ideally it is filled by a descendant of Aaron, but if one can’t be found it is an appendage to the office of High Priest and is filled by a High Priest. In referring to the lesser priesthood (aka Aaronic) we learn:

D&C 107:15
The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.

So the Bishop straddles the greater priesthood and the lesser priesthood. The duties of the bishop today are dramatically different (and mostly unscriptural) compared to during the life of Joseph, but we’ll cover that in a future post.

Elder

This is the one that is going to take some serious re-education.

D&C 84:29
The offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

Just as the offices of Deacon and Teacher are appendages the the office of Priest, and the entire Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the High Priesthood, the office of Elder is also an appendage. Let that sink in.

The office of Elder is not integral to the High Priesthood. It’s a portico — not necessary, but beneficial. It’s another subset of responsibilities – basically allowing the High Priests to outsource part of their duties. Or better yet, allowing God to delegate specific roles to men who either don’t qualify for the High Priesthood, or just don’t have access to the High Priesthood at that time.

Elders do not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood. They have received a subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood, just as Aaronic offices have received a subset. Only a High Priest holds the Melchizedek Priesthood.

D&C 107:7
The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

UNDER: In a state of pupilage or subjection; as a youth under a tutor; a ward under a guardian; colonies under the British government.

I like the last example. The Elders are like colonies. Semi-autonomous, but definitely not part of the main government or country. Their powers are limited, especially when a high priest is present.

D&C 107:11-12
An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present. The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeable to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

Putting the pieces together

In this scripturally-based model, there really is only one priesthood, but there are subsets of that priesthood. In this model, your authority ties directly to the office to which you are ordained. You aren’t given all of the priesthood and then restricted in what you can do (as we do today by giving 11 year old boys the Aaronic priesthood but then telling them they cannot perform baptisms). Either you are a High Priest that holds all the priesthood, or you are ordained to an office that holds only a specific subset of that authority. When you read the early history of the church, men were ordained to offices, not priesthood.

Hypotheticals

Let’s say, hypothetically, that God wanted to restore his church to the world after a long absence. Just as you don’t go from sitting on the couch to running a marathon in the Olympics without some training in the middle, you can’t go from apostasy to the fullness of the gospel without some intermediate work. God could give a subset of authority (Priests and Teachers) to allow people to begin repenting and administering outward ordinances like baptism. Then he could give another subset of authority (Elders) to enable men to preach the gospel and give the gift of the Holy Ghost. Once the people were “in shape”, they would then be ready for the fullness, specifically the complete priesthood or the office of High Priest.

Let’s also say, hypothetically, that God decided to remove the fullness of the priesthood and there were no more men with the authority of High Priest. The office of Elder, being a subset and an appendage, could continue to function and run the church, albeit with some limitations. In this case the church would be downgraded from it’s previous status, but still have the opportunity to administer in both outward ordinances and give the gift of the Holy Ghost and preach the gospel to the world.

That looks like two separate priesthoods: a higher priesthood and a lower priesthood. If the people kept using the term High Priest even though they didn’t have the authority anymore, it would be confusing and incorrect, but from an actual authority standpoint it would still look like two priesthoods, even though they were really two appendages or subsets of the true priesthood that is not available.

The key insight for me was to think in terms of offices rather than priesthood. That’s the language that was used for the first five years of the church when all this was being restored. It wasn’t until after the fullness had been lost that the priesthood terminology was introduced and muddied the waters.

Next:

In the next post, we’ll review the history of the restoration of priesthood offices, keeping track of the different wording used at different times, and show how this model reflects what actually happened.

When he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED september 11, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

The final chapters of 2 Nephi include powerful teachings from Nephi on the doctrine of Christ. His teaching in 2 Nephi 31 can be summarized by Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. This is doctrine that is testified of repeatedly and consistently throughout the scriptures, both ancient and modern.

In 2 Nephi 32:6, while talking to his people in the Americas, he states:

Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

Self-proclaimed modern prophets and visionaries use this verse to justify why the new doctrine they are teaching (which isn’t found in the scriptures) is true doctrine. They claim that because they, while in the flesh, have seen Christ, he has taught them a higher doctrine and they now have “further light and knowledge” than the fullness of the gospel God says is contained in  the scriptures.

Strangely, they also freely teach this new doctrine, even though they themselves supposedly only received it after qualifying to enter into God’s presence. If the doctrine can only be obtained individually through a personal encounter with Christ, why would they be free to splash it all over the internet and teach it to anyone and everyone who hasn’t obtained a personal encounter with Christ themselves? Alas, I digress.

The fundamental issue here is whether Nephi is actually teaching that every person on earth needs to have a personal encounter with Christ to learn higher doctrine than what is taught in the scriptures. Regular readers of this blog probably won’t be surprised when I say, “Let’s see what the scriptures say!”

2 Nephi 6:9
The Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, should manifest himself unto them in the flesh; and after he should manifest himself they should scourge him and crucify him, according to the words of the angel who spake it unto me.

This is Jacob teaching, and he is clearly referring to Christ’s earthly ministry when talking about God manifesting himself in the flesh. It isn’t the audience that is “in the flesh”, it’s God that is “in the flesh”.

2 Nephi 25:12-13
But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks. Behold, they will crucify him; and after he is laid in a sepulchre for the space of three days he shall rise from the dead, with healing in his wings; and all those who shall believe on his name shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

This is Nephi, and when he talking about God “manifesting himself unto them in the flesh” it is during Jesus’ earthly ministry, while he himself is dwelling in a tabernacle of flesh.

Enos 1:8
And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. And many years pass away before he shall manifest himself in the flesh; wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole.

Enos lived roughly 500 years before Christ’s earthly ministry. God does not promised Enos that Christ will manifest himself to Enos during his lifetime. Christ, the Messiah, will manifest himself in the flesh many years (about 500) in the future. If Nephi had promised that humans in the flesh could see God at any time, why would God tell Enos many years would pass away before this could happen? Shouldn’t it have already been happening ever since Nephi made the promise in 2 Nephi 32? Did God mispeak?

1 Nephi 13: 35
For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb.

Once again, Nephi, the same Nephi that wrote 2 Nephi 32:6, is using the “manifesting himself” terminology to refer to Christ’s ministry among the Nephites after his resurrection and his teachings found in 3 Nephi that will come forth with the publication of the Book of Mormon. The people that Christ manifest himself unto did write the doctrines they were taught, and those doctrines are found in 3 Nephi. Why are the modern visionaries teaching a different doctrine than what we find in 3 Nephi if we’re all supposed to have the same experience and learn the same doctrine?

Alma 45:10
And these are the words: Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief.

Alma is referring to Christ’s manifestation to the Nephite nation in 3 Nephi, not to numerous personal manifestations that occur over thousands of years. Agreeing with Nephi and Jacob, Alma believes that Christ will manifest himself unto the Nephites at one specific point in time, and that four hundred years later the people will dwindle in unbelief.

3 Nephi 10:18-19
And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto them—showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings.

This is Mormon as he is summarizing the events shortly after the death of Jesus. Mormon, like Nephi, Jacob, Enos, and Alma before him, thinks that Jesus manifesting himself unto the people is one specific incident rather than a process spread across thousands of years. He even goes so far as to promise that he will give an account of that manifestation in the flesh, which comprises the rest of 3 Nephi. .

The scriptural authors, including Nephi himself, consistently use “manifest himself unto them in the flesh” (or variations of that) to refer to Jesus’ ministry recorded in 3 Nephi. There are no scriptural examples of the interpretation that Christ manifesting himself in the flesh is a personal visitation to individual humans while those humans are in the flesh. That’s redundant. All humans are in the flesh, so any manifestation of God would qualify if “in the flesh” referred to the audience. But it doesn’t refer to the audience, it is God who is “in the flesh” during this important manifestation. That is when Jesus lived on the earth in Judea and when he appeared in the flesh to the Nephites after his resurrection.

The modern day “prophets” who claim that Nephi is teaching that God will reveal a different gospel to individuals who have a personal encounter with a spiritual being are either ignorantly and willfully twisting his words to say something Nephi nor any other prophet ever taught. If this were true, why didn’t any of these scriptural prophets, after having their own divine encounter, ever mention all the new doctrine they were taught? If ancient prophets were prohibited from sharing this secret doctrine, why are today’s “prophets” able to freely tell everyone about their secret doctrine? That is inconsistent, and God is not inconsistent. So everyone should question the source of this secret doctrine.

What was the new commandment that Nephi promised would be introduced after Christ manifest himself in the flesh? Notice that Nephi specifically said the Nephite would have to “observe to do” this new commandment after Jesus gave it.

3 Nephi 18:5-6
And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.

This new commandment appears to be the sacrament. All the ordinances of the law of Moses that pointed people to Christ were replaced with the sacrament. The sacrament was the new, approved method to testify to the Father that we remember Jesus. Jesus commanded all believers to partake of the sacrament regularly. The scriptures have multiple witnesses that after Christ’s resurrection this was the defining new “doctrine” of Christians, to partake of the bread and wine in his memory.

The real test is whether we will believe the simplicity of the doctrine of Christ as contained in the scriptures, or allow our itching ears to drive us to look beyond the mark and seek out a different gospel that was never taught in scripture. Buyer beware!

 

The Sin of Sodom

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED January 9, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

In a recent episode of the Iron Rod Podcast, we discussed:

2 Nephi 13:9
The show of their countenance doth witness against them, and doth declare their sin to be even as Sodom, and they cannot hide it. Wo unto their souls, for they have rewarded evil unto themselves!

Searcher made the observation that most modern Christians assume this sin is homosexuality, but the Old Testament spells out what the sin of Sodom was.

Ezekiel 16:49-50
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

Afterwards, a listener contacted me with another great observation. In the 1833 Book of Commandments, the Lord said:

And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto Satan, for he reigneth and hath much power at this time, for he hath got great hold upon the hearts of the people of this generation: and not far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah, do they come at this time: and behold the sword of justice hangeth over their heads, and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that it must fall upon them.

This listener pointed out that there wasn’t a large LGBTQ demographic in 1833, so the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah that the Lord is referring to don’t appear to be sexual in nature. What was going on in 1833? Poor immigrants struggling to survive after fleeing poverty in their home countries. Slavery. Oppression.

That got me thinking about how we are doing 200 years later. While we don’t have institutionalized slavery, we hear of isolated cases of immigrants basically being used as slaves here in the US. Lurking in the shadows are more insidious forms of enslavement. The press has just barely begun to shine the light into the doings of Jeffrey Epstein and the rich and famous he catered to. The Super Bowl is coming up soon – supposedly the largest sexual trafficking event in the world.

Tragically, you and I are indirectly supporting many of these sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. There are rare earth materials used in modern electronics that are primarily found in war-torn regions of Africa like the Congo. Known as conflict minerals, they provide the economic engine that enables local warlords to kidnap children to be part of their army and then use them to enslave local populations to mine for these conflict minerals. To its credit, the electronics industry has been working to establish procedures to certify minerals as coming from conflict-free suppliers. Yet someone is still buying and using the minerals mined by the warlords. Sadly, they are almost assuredly in the phones and computers we are using to read this blog, listen to the Iron Rod Podcast, and search the scriptures.

Truly we live in Babylon. I’m not sure it’s possible for anyone to live today without being contaminated in one degree or another with the blood and sins of this generation. Awful is our state. We are captives in Egypt waiting for a Moses to deliver us, because only power from on high can save us from our current state.

Enoch and the Lord

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD’s WORK POSTED January 22, 2020 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

I was reading Moses 7 this evening, where Enoch has an extensive discussion with the Lord. It’s quite confusing if you believe the LDS tradition about Elohim being the Father and Jehovah being the Son.

In the previous chapter, Enoch had been preaching to the people and taught:

Moses 6:57
Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Man of Holiness = Father = Elohim.
Son of Man = Jesus Christ = Jehovah.

In Chapter 7, Enoch is talking to the Lord, which is ambiguous. But when the Lord responds to Enoch, he gives away his identity.

Moses 7:35
Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

So Enoch is talking to Elohim, God the Father. As a second witness:

Moses 7
50 And it came to pass that Enoch continued his cry unto the Lord, saying: I ask thee, O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ, that thou wilt have mercy upon Noah and his seed, that the earth might never more be covered by the floods.
51 And the Lord could not withhold; and he covenanted with Enoch, and sware unto him with an oath, that he would stay the floods; that he would call upon the children of Noah;

The Lord Enoch is speaking to is the Father, because he is asking in the name of his Only Begotten, Jesus Christ. The next verses seem to support it being the Father doing the talking.

54 And it came to pass that Enoch cried unto the Lord, saying: When the Son of Man comes in the flesh, shall the earth rest? I pray thee, show me these things.
55 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross, after the manner of men;
56 And he heard a loud voice; and the heavens were veiled; and all the creations of God mourned; and the earth groaned; and the rocks were rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory;
57 And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day.

OK – the Son of Man is also God. We’re still safe, right?

59 And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? Forasmuch as thou art God, and I know thee, and thou hast sworn unto me, and commanded me that I should ask in the name of thine Only Begotten; thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne, and not of myself, but through thine own grace; wherefore, I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth.
60 And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah;

Stop the presses! Enoch asks the Father in the name of the Only Begotten if the Father will come again on the earth. And the Father says he will come in the last days. Doesn’t Elohim realize that Jehovah is supposed to do that? Elohim is having a serious identity crisis.

62 And righteousness will I send down out of heaven; and truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of mine Only Begotten; his resurrection from the dead; yea, and also the resurrection of all men; and righteousness and truth will I cause to sweep the earth as with a flood, to gather out mine elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare, an Holy City, that my people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming; for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.

65 And it came to pass that Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, in the last days, to dwell on the earth in righteousness for the space of a thousand years;

Does Elohim come again, or the Son of Man? The Lord seems to thinks it’s both. I don’t know how anyone can reconcile this chapter of scripture with the Elohim/Jehovah concept the LDS Church preaches. It’s too bad the LDS Church doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon, which explains Moses 7 easily.

Mosiah 13:28, 33-34
And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.

For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things? Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

Mosiah 15:1-5
And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwells in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son-And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffers temptation, and yields not to the temptation, but suffers himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

Alma 42:15
And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atones for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

Ether 3:14
Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Those verses fly in the face of the Elohim/Jehovah doctrine. But they actually support Moses 7. Maybe we should just believe the Book of Mormon.

In parting, here’s another verse the LDS Church should embrace.

Mosiah 16:15
Teach them that redemption comes through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Only in times of famine - Word of Wisdom

 

THIS IS A REPOST OF MD'S WORK POSTED 20 FROM MEASURINGDOCTRINE.COM

Section 89 can be difficult to understand. Between the undefined terms (what is a hot drink?) and the traditions we’ve grown up with, trying to understand what the Lord really intended can be tough. One subject that we see confusion around is eating meat.

D&C 89:10-13
And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving. Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; and it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine.

Here the Lord is telling us herbs and fruits are ordained as food for man. Also that the flesh of beasts and fowls are to used, not only in times of winter, or cold, or famine, but presumably all year round. (The comma between “should not be used” and “only in times of winter” was added in 1921, so I ignore it). One definition of sparingly is moderately,  tenderly, or not lavishly. Other times sparingly can mean seldom or not frequently, but the next scripture seems to not support that definition here.

D&C 49:18-21
And whoso forbids to abstain from meats, that man should not eat the same, is not ordained of God; for, behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. And wo be unto man that sheds blood or that wastes flesh and has no need.

That’s a second witness that the beasts of the field and fowls of the air are ordained for the use of man. But the Lord gives two warnings. First, that one man should not possess more than another. We should not have people starving while others have plenty (insert law of consecration here). And secondly, wasting the flesh of animals, killing them when there is no need, is bad. But we are also to have this food in abundance. Abundance means ample sufficiency. This isn’t gluttony. It’s enough. More than the minimum, but not to excess.

God gives a third witness.

D&C 59:16-20
Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbs upon the trees and walketh upon the earth; yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards; yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart; yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul. And it pleases God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.

To be used. For food. With judgment, not to excess.

Now that we’ve established this, let’s go back to Section 89 and read the next verses.

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;
15 And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

What exactly has God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess hunger?

Most people will assume he’s referring to eating meat again. But that contradicts all those previous scriptures that tells us meat is ordained for the use of man, to be used abundantly but not to excess.

Some interpret this to mean we’re only supposed to eat grain during times of famine and excess of hunger. But that seems to ignore the next verse.

16 All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground

I think the answer is right there in the scriptures.

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; and these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger.

This is the first time wild animals has been used in Section 89. The previous verses talk about eating beasts of the field, but do not mention wild animals.

Let’s use a bit of English grammar to decode this. These is plural. In verse 14, all grain is singular. Wild animals are plural. We also have the difference between these and those. When you have two groups, the closer group is referred to as these, and the more distant group is referred to as those. The closest group to the word these is wild animals, not grain, not beasts of the field, and not fowls of heaven.

While grammar can help us understand the meaning, we really need some scriptural witnesses to confirm that. Is there a difference between beasts of the field and wild beasts or wild animals?

1 Nephi 18:25
And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men.

Here Nephi seems to be making a distinction between beasts (cows, oxen, horses, and goats) and wild animals. Nephi talks about hunting wild beasts to feed his family during a time of excess hunger.

1 Nephi 16
19 And it came to pass that we did return without food to our families, and being much fatigued, because of their journeying, they did suffer much for the want of food.
21 Now it came to pass that I, Nephi, having been afflicted with my brethren because of the loss of my bow, and their bows having lost their springs, it began to be exceedingly difficult, yea, insomuch that we could obtain no food.
31 And it came to pass that I did slay wild beasts, insomuch that I did obtain food for our families.

Later in the Book of Mormon we have another description that distinguishes between domesticated animals and wild beasts.

3 Nephi 4:2-3
2 But behold, there were no wild beasts nor game in those lands which had been deserted by the Nephites, and there was no game for the robbers save it were in the wilderness. And the robbers could not exist save it were in the wilderness, for the want of food; for the Nephites had left their lands desolate, and had gathered their flocks and their herds and all their substance, and they were in one body.

It seems that wild beasts and wild animals are one in the same. The emphasis is on the wild part. The Lamanites were hunting game in the wilderness. The Nephites had flocks and herds. Alma also describes wild animals as living in the wilderness.

Alma 22:31
And they came from there up into the south wilderness. Thus the land on the northward was called Desolation, and the land on the southward was called Bountiful, it being the wilderness which is filled with all manner of wild animals of every kind, a part of which had come from the land northward for food.

It seems that hunting wild animals is what the Lord is referring to in D&C 89:15 when he says they are only to be used in times of famine and excess hunger. Hunting isn’t forbidden, but it is restricted. Enos went to hunt beasts in the forest when he kneeled down in prayer. Nephi hunted food in the wilderness to provide for his family. So this isn’t a sin outright. But who are the examples of those that hunt to excess? Nimrod, the founder of Babel, was a mighty hunter. Esau was a cunning hunter. And Enos tells us of the Lamanites.

Enos 1:20
And I bear record that the people of Nephi did seek diligently to restore the Lamanites unto the true faith in God. But our labors were vain; their hatred was fixed, and they were led by their evil nature that they became wild, and ferocious, and a blood-thirsty people, full of idolatry and filthiness; feeding upon beasts of prey; dwelling in tents, and wandering about in the wilderness with a short skin girdle about their loins and their heads shaven; and their skill was in the bow, and in the cimeter, and the ax. And many of them did eat nothing save it was raw meat; and they were continually seeking to destroy us.

Nephi and his family ate raw meat in the wilderness and the Lord blessed them. The Lamanites at raw meat and it was a cursing. So eating raw meat in and of itself isn’t sin. During times of famine and excess hunger it’s fine. But if that becomes your staple diet, you’ve gone too far. So it seems with hunting in general. The Nephites farmed extensively, with both grains and flocks of animals, and hunted occasionally. The Lamanites didn’t farm, and either pillaged or hunted for their sustenance.

I can’t help but notice that our hunting laws restrict hunting to specific times of the year, and limit the number of animals that can be killed. I suspect that if these laws were repealed, some percentage of hunters would hunt to excess, much like what happened with the wild buffalo in the 1800s. Our hunting laws seem to be implementing the will of the Lord to some degree (albeit by coercion). An outright prohibition on hunting for food is not God’s will. Trophy hunting, where blood is spilled when there is no need, seems to be a different story.

So what does this mean for us? Beef, poultry, and other domesticated meats are fine to eat year round, in abundant moderation but not to excess. Grains, herbs, and fruits are fine to eat year round. Wild animals, however, should only be eaten in times of famine and excess hunger.