- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Moses received his Priesthood from his father-in-law – who was not an Israelite. I am open to the idea that the three wise men who visited Mary and Joseph and Jesus held the Priesthood, even though there is no scriptural proof of that. They certainly had prophecy and were in tune with it. I also am open to a generic “priesthood of believers” prior to the birth of Jesus – as I personally don’t think Lehi “held the Priesthood” and am open to the idea that Alma wasn’t physically ordained by anyone. Remember, Joseph didn’t receive his Priesthood from an unbroken line of living people. I think his was a special case – that most, if not all, others of whom we are aware who performed ordinances but appeared to have not been ordained were acting in faith that their efforts would be imputed as if they had been ordained – much like those who kept the Law of Moses but did so explicitly as a token of their faith in the future Messiah.
Heterodox, I know, but more in line with what I actually read in the scriptures.
Good points Ray. I’d respectfully take issue with a couple.
The three wise men thing …. there may have been dozens of wise men or only two…there is no record of three.
No big deal .
As I regard Peter, James, and John in their resurrected form as living people, just as Jesus in his resurrected form is a living person, I would say that Joseph Smith did indeed receive his priesthood through an unbroken line of authority.
If the underlying question here is:
What can an properly ordained priesthood holder do that a person of equal or greater faith can’t do?
That’s a very good question. I would say that preisthood helps trememdously, or it wouldn’t be necessary, but I don’t know if I could back that up with scripture. It seems enormously important in God’s eyes however.
You’re right, Bruce, about the wise men – and I have made that same point to my children and students multiple times. It’s amazing what comes out of your fingers when you’re typing in a rush. *sigh* The Priesthood line issue is super-nitpicky, however. *grin*
I wanted to revisit this old thread as well, as Bruce brought up some interesting points about the priesthood (see comments about the 2nd anointing and women). I was searching for this because at church yesterday, the counselor in the Bishopric bore his testimony, and said how grateful he was for the priesthood. He said (as I paraphrase from memory)
Quote:When the church was first started it had only 6 members, and the priesthood was restored then to be able to have the structure that now guides a church the size of 14 million members.
He gave a good testimony, but I noted the inaccurate presumptions in his testimony that is, I think, common to many members that haven’t studied the history of the Priesthood, and perhaps assume it was restored to Joseph to run the church, and hasn’t changed significantly since.As Bruce clarified in earlier posts in this thread, the church was an appendage of the priesthood, not the other way around.
When the church first started, Elders were part of the Aaronic Priesthood, and were said to be the highest office in the church, with Joseph being 1st Elder and Oliver 2nd Elder.
This evolved over time, and it wasn’t until Nauvoo that the structure was fairly developed with the Lesser and Greater priesthoods. The High Council was regarded by some as the highest governing body in the church, which was the source of some confusion for many during the “succession crisis” after Joseph’s martyrdom. The Quorum of the 12 were the “traveling elders”, but the High Council was the governing body.
D.Michael Quinn has presented a lot of the history in
The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. I don’t see a problem with the evolution of priesthood and the early church. I think revelation has frequently worked this way line upon line, and as they struggled through the church organization and needs over those several years, it began to take shape and began to provide the structure needed to keep the church organized so it could grow. I even saw on BYU TV on Sunday a short historic piece on how the Sacrament evolved in the Tabernacle over time and as the church grew, and it was just too impractical to have one shared cup passed from person to person (although originally this practice was done as a way to unify to congregation), as the speakers preached for 2 hours or more in order for the large congregation to all get the cup passed around. So these things evolve and change as needed. And has continued to do so.
But it would clearly be incorrect to say that on 6 April 1830 the Church was organized in the structure we recognize today, or even that John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John restored the keys and gave instruction on how it should all be organized in quorums and hierarchy like we have now. It would be nice if it was that nice and neat, and God just gave Joseph all the structure and teachings, and Joseph just relayed it to us, but that clearly didn’t happen. It evolves over time, including the Priesthood, and the Church, and the Church teachings.
Perhaps seeing things evolve over a period of years seems long and frustrating for us and our timetable, but perhaps to God, it is a blip on the eternal scale of things, so evolution isn’t significant to how God works with His children.
Even in “our own time”, look at the changes that have occured with the 70’s. No more 70’s on a Stake level.
It seems like only yesterday to me.
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.