/
RSS Feed
Tradition teaches that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in 1829. Yet many documented sources indicate it happened in June 1831 during a conference at Morley Farm, and what was restored is different from what we have now. This episode discusses what the Melchizedek Priesthood really is and why the conference at Morley Farm deserves far more attention than it gets.
Some key scriptures cited:
D&C 107:2, 9-11, 21-22, 63-66
D&C 20:38-39
D&C 88:127
JST Genesis 14:26-36
Alma 13:1-13
Can’t wait to dive into this one.
Question I’ve had…
If there were apostles before there were apostles. Meaning that there were apostles in 1832, right after 6 elders were made high priests and given the fullness from the Father right out of heaven in D&C 84.
Then he goes on to call them his apostles and his high priests.
63And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God’s high priests; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends;
Compare these high priests to what section 29 says.
38The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;
So which is it? Is an apostle an elder or an high priest? Brigham was only an elder. Was this a down grade? Was this added later? So many questions.
Then there were apostles in 1835. Even a Quorum of Twelve.
BUT the first set were apostles of the Church of Christ — even the Church of God. The latter were apostles of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. 😉
Does this mean that if there ever were a show down that the former would supersede the latter in authority?
Check out these verses in D&C 86 and see what happens to the church after the apostles die.
2Behold, verily I say, the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed;
3And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.
When Christ gave the parable he was the sower, but here it’s the apostles. Is this a spiritual death? The apostles losing the fullness and the church going into the wilderness?
Clearly this verse in D&C 95 has reference to the 3rd Watch. But which set of apostles is this referring to? The Quorum of the Twelve hadn’t been officially called. Was God’s high priests who were apostles that are to go forth and prune his vineyard for the last time — the first laborers?
4For the preparation wherewith I design to prepare mine apostles to prune my vineyard for the last time, that I may bring to pass my strange act, that I may pour out my Spirit upon all flesh—
These are great questions. We attempted to cover some of them in the podcast.
I will give my opinions and perhaps Searcher and MD will share their opinions as well.
As alluded to in the podcast, High Priests have all the rights, privileges and powers of all the lesser priesthood offices. They can act as missionaries and baptize people or they can function in administrative roles.
All high priests are apostles.
We know from Section 84 that Joseph, Sidney and others were high priest apostles.
However, the evangelical priesthood restored by John the Baptist can also call elders to the apostleship. All of the evangelical apostles are elders, but not all evangelical elders are called to be apostles.
Nevertheless, these evangelical apostles will not reach the fulness of their apostleship until they have actually seen Christ and been ordained by him, as pointed out in the commission that Oliver Cowdery gave to the evangelical apostles called in 1835.
In essence theirs was a preliminary, probationary apostleship with the commission to seek the fulness of their apostleship calling.
“Does this mean that if there ever were a show down that the former would supersede the latter in authority?”
During the succession crisis there was a showdown between Rigdon who had been ordained as a melchizedek apostle and Brigham who was only an evangelical apostle.
However, the fulness of the priesthood had been taken from among the saints because the saints had collective rejected the fulmess, and the saints chose Brigham over Sidney as their presiding guide.
“Check out these verses in D&C 86 and see what happens to the church after the apostles die”
I believe those verses are making specific reference to how and why the new testament church went into the wilderness of darkness.
As someone has previously obsevered from Lehi’s dream, the new testament saints did not have the benefit of the iron rod written word of God and they were weak in the faith. They needed the guidance and support of the apostles. When the apostles died off, the church was overcome by Scratch and went into the wilderness of darkness.
“When Christ gave the parable he was the sower, but here it’s the apostles. Is this a spiritual death? The apostles losing the fullness and the church going into the wilderness?”
Christ was speaking to the Jews when he gave the parable.
At that time, he was the sole sower.
They rejected the gospel invitation being extended to them. Hence that period of time did not result in a gospel dispensation. Eventually, after the crucifixion and beginning of the first gospel dispensation, Christ called the Twelve apostles and gave the keys of the kingdom to them and sent them to preach to the gentiles. At that time they were on the Lord’s errand and as his representatives, they also became sowers of the seed.
“Clearly this verse in D&C 95 has reference to the 3rd Watch. But which set of apostles is this referring to? The Quorum of the Twelve hadn’t been officially called. Was God’s high priests who were apostles that are to go forth and prune his vineyard for the last time — the first laborers?”
During the third watch, the first laborers of the last kingdom who are both high priests and apostles will begin the work and go forth, nevertheless, others will be called by them to take the everlasting gospel to the nations of the earth.
Many of the evangelical apostles called in 1835 were promised in patriarchal blessings that they would one day go forth in power, suggesting that they may be elevated to the higher apostleship (predicated on obedience) when the final watch begins.
BTW after the early years of the church in Kirtland, elders were added to the quorum of the Twelve who had previously been called to the higher priesthood. Such as Lyman Wight and Parley Pratt
I just finished listening to this week’s episode.
Thank you for the clarification on the sower(s) in the first watch being both Christ and the apostles.
And yes, I do recall researching and writing you about Lehi’s dream and the 3 Watches
“ …and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the elders. It was clearly evident that the Lord gave us power in proportion to the work to be done, and strength according to the race set before us, and grace and help as our needs required.” History of the Church volume one pages 175,176.
In June 1831, Out of Heaven this fledgling Church of Christ received the power in proportion to the work to be done…that of establishing Zion, The kingdom of God on earth…the reason for the highest power.
In June 1834 section 105 was given to a group that no longer had the opportunity to establish Zion and that had the name of Christ removed from their church earlier in May.
9 Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion–
10 That they themselves may be prepared, and that my people may be taught more perfectly, and have experience, and know more perfectly concerning their duty, and the things which I require at their hands.
11 And this cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with power from on high.
The power from on high that they had lost as a church to established the Kingdom of God on earth at that time was the Highest Priesthood given at the Morley farm In June 1831.
“That my people may be taught more perfectly concerning their duty” is why the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was changed in its order and purpose…
I believe toward the end of the podcast would have been a great place to include if we had continued the use of the 1835 D&C today Deity the three Priesthoods might not be so skewed by the Brighamite church who subsequently changed the order in 1876.
The new 1835 edition of The Book of Commandments to the Church of Latter Day Saints , as given by a true prophet, Joseph, during the end of the revelatory sweet spot, all of the priesthood revelations are at the beginning… Section 1, 20, 107, 84, 102, 86, 88.
Also Critical to the Church of the latter-day Saints , post 1835 D&C, If accepted and understood, they collectively could have understood more perfectly the priesthood required and section 124’s mandates… for them to finish the temple on time, set aside Satan‘s introduction of the masonic order, also the other stumbling block temptations they were susceptible to and warned of early in the D&C (polygamy) … and called for the Priesthood loss to be returned for the establishment of Zion…
Thanks, Another great podcast…
D&C 107
17But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices,
If HP have the authority to offiate in ALL the lesser offices, why were some of the high priests from Morley’s Farm ordained apostles?
I suspect there is a difference between priesthood office and a specific calling and commission within a general priesthood office.
Apostles can serve in various capacities, some of which may require a specific ordination.
The quorum of the Twelve had a specific missionary commission which requires a distinct calling and ordination.
They were a “Traveling Presiding High Council” whose service and responsibilities were limited to missionary activities and a designated geography and demographic. As such they were expressly commanded to not officiate or preside inside an organized stake of zion, while other apostles were at liberty to serve in Zion, for example, on a stake high council, etc..
Those of the high priests that were called to that special traveling missionary quorum needed to still be ordained, not necessarily to gain greater priesthood, but to a specific calling within the priesthood they already held.
That is my best guess.
D&C 107:17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
According to the scriptural pattern, a high priest is called, set apart, and ORDAINED to be a bishop. I don’t think anyone would try to argue that a bishop is a higher calling than high priest. In the modern church, we use the word ordain differently so this sounds confusing. But if a high priest is ordained to be a bishop, it should not be problematic for a high priest to be ordained to be an apostle, nor should it imply any sort of hierarchy.
Great catch. Thank you.
Great information, thank you. One thought that I had in reference to the BoR 144,000 is that these high priests may come from a totality of 144,000 from the time of Adam until now to do a work here in the latter days. You know, like 12,000 from each of the 12 periods of instruction totaling 144,000. A second option is that all 144,000 are chosen from our latter day time-period. Yet I do not know if that is possible but it is a belief that I have had and not the former theory. That is, how is it possible for 144,000 to be set apart when at the time of Joseph only 23 are found? Yes the church has spawned perhaps 16 million (living) and more over the past 150 years to choose from so I suppose it is possible. One thing that perplexed me was that of a 5 month time-frame (Rev. Ch. 9) within which the 144,000 are protected. The point of which is that they are called before or during that first woe. Thus: 1) over a 6,000 year period of time or 2) here in the latter days. I realize this is off subject but it is to the point of the purpose of the high priests during our time. That is, the high priests of the LDS church are not the high priests of the BoR they being of the order of the Son of God. Since 5 months is not enough time to train them then they must be trained now or have been trained over the past thousands of years. The two leaders of this group are Michael (Dan. 12) and John (Sec. 77) and specifically referenced in Rev. Chs. 10-11. Since Michael comes to us from the beginning (day 1) and John from day 5,000 or there about as men that have not died, then perhaps all 144,000 are likewise men of the Testimony of Jesus (to live till he comes) from all the past six thousand years. The only consolation to the latter day high priests gathering is the Davidic payment of John prior to his call to the throne of God (Rev. 12:5). For it appears to be his payment as a Davidic King in Judah that protects the 144,000. This would mean that these high priests are called during our time to fulfill that function. I could go on with the speculation but the bottom line appears to be that some or perhaps all of the 144,000 high priests will be from our period here in the latter days.
The above declaration in the BofR seems to indicate that these high priests are taken from “among Men” which to me would indicate that these are very possibly from every generation of this earth.
These are the ones that represent the first harvest and they end up taking the “everlasting gospel” (not necessarily the fulness of the gospel) to those of the second harvest.
It is AFTER the 144,000 are sealed up and sing the new song that they then take the everlasting gospel to those that did not accept the fulness
That is my current speculation and I reserve the right to change my mind at a moments notice.
I am of the belief that these prophets will be prepared in the school of the prophets under the direction of those that hold the keys of the school of the prophets as listed in section 90.
Thank you Watcher. You stated:
1) “The above declaration in the BofR seems to indicate that these high priests are taken from “among Men” which to me would indicate that these are very possibly from every generation of this earth.”
Nicely put. I had never considered that possibility until hearing this (015) podcast.
2) “These are the ones that represent the first harvest and they end up taking the “everlasting gospel” (not necessarily the fulness of the gospel) to those of the second harvest.”
How are you distinguishing the first harvest from the second harvest? It is my understanding that the 144,000 are not resurrected but translated due to the metaphorical phrase “testimony of Jesus” in Rev. 1:2, 9, 19:10 that leads to Verse 22:9. This phrase (testimony of Jesus) in Rev. 1:2 represents the end of The Gospel According to John having three parts as follows: 1) the “Word of God” in John Chapter 1, the “testimony of Jesus” in John Chapter 21, and “all things that he (John) saw” between the beginning (Ch. 1) and ending (Ch. 21) of that gospel message. That ending is the “testimony of Jesus” that means John lives until Lord Jesus comes. Thus accordingly, since the brethren have the testimony of Jesus (Rev. 19:10), then they (the 144,000) are translated as John and the angel (Michael) are translated. I can show that Michael is the angel of the BoR.
3) “It is AFTER the 144,000 are sealed up and sing the new song that they then take the everlasting gospel to those that did not accept the fulness”
Can you explain this further? I understand the reference to Rev. Chapters 7, 14 and 15 and the new song and the carrying on the shoulders spoken of in Isaiah. Are you placing the first harvest as the exodus (shadow of Moses leaving Egypt in the 1st woe of Rev. 9) and the second harvest as the gathering of saints after the second woe (war of Rev. 9)?
I am simply noting that “first fruits” means those the come forth first. I think it is pointless to speculate the difference between resurrected and translated because the scriptures don’t seem to use the term resurrected exactly the same way all the time, in fact a Book of Mormon prophet admitted that he was not sure exactly how the term applied if my memory serves me correctly.
Section 88 used the phrase, “quickened and caught up“.
I believe Section 88:96-98 refers to the first fruits or in other words, the elect of God (Celestial spirits)
Thank you Watcher. I can see what you were saying now. I am going to clarify some of the text as follows:
96 And the saints that are upon the earth, who are alive, shall be quickened and be caught up to meet him.
97 And they who have slept in their graves shall come forth, for their graves shall be opened; and they also shall be caught up to meet him in the midst of the pillar of heaven—
98 They are Christ’s, **the first fruits**, they who shall descend with him first, and they who are on the earth and in their graves, who are first caught up to meet him; and all this by the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God.
The above verses show two groups as the first fruits. Those who are quickened meaning translated (v. 96) that are taken up and then descend with Christ (v. 98), and secondly the dead in the graves who are caught up meaning resurrected via “the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God” (v. 98) that is “the pillar of heaven” (v. 97) and this is Michael. Thus, the two events combined are the first fruits.
Then at Verse 99 is the second resurrection as follows:
99 And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh.
The other angel (v. 99) is John who has the keys over the pit as given in Rev. 1:18. I had not realized that Michael presides over the first resurrection and John over the second. Additionally, Christ coming to the earth in Verse 99 is 1,000 years after Verses 96-98 because they have been in prison (v. 99). This Verse harmonizes with Rev. Chapter 20.
So please correct me if I am wrong but the first fruits is the coming events in our time and the second fruits is 1,000 years from now.
You said: “The above verses show two groups as the first fruits. Those who are quickened meaning translated (v. 96) that are taken up and then descend with Christ (v. 98), and secondly the dead in the graves who are caught up meaning resurrected via “the voice of the sounding of the trump of the angel of God” (v. 98) that is “the pillar of heaven” (v. 97) and this is Michael. Thus, the two events combined are the first fruits.”
In my opinion, the only distinction between the two groups of the first harvest (first fruits) is that one group represents the saints that are quickened while being alive on the earth, while the other group of saints are from previous generations that have died and are therefore quickened from the dead.
Both inherit the same reward and are caught up into the same cloud before the wrath of God falls upon everyone else, they are simply coming forth in a specific order based on what time period they lived on the earth and received the fulness of the gospel.
I don’t see any reason to force a distinction between the two groups beyond that which is evident in the passages.
This is why I don’t think it is wise to try to insert a preconceived perception of “resurrection” into the passages when it isn’t there. I think that since no distinction is made in the verses, we should not presume that a distinction exists.
One of the reasons the term “resurrection” can be confusing is because the modern LDS restoration churches have indoctrinated us with resurrection narratives that are not necessarily accurate.
Also, I don’t understand what your fixation is having to do with making Michael and John over two different groups. Perhaps you can explain what you mean, where it is supported in scripture, and why a significant distinction exists.
You said: “Then at Verse 99 is the second resurrection as follows”
I would disagree with that. The passage says nothing about a “resurrection“. Rather, it speaks of a “redemption”. I do not think the terms are synonymous. To be redeemed from prison does not pre-suppose that a physical “resurrection” into a final resurrected and glorified state has taken place.
Indeed, the passage informs us that, unlike the first harvest saints who are quickened and caught up, these terrestrial souls are actually judged while on earth in the flesh. I find it more likely that they are being judged in the mortal flesh than in a final resurrected state. Why would people be judged AFTER their final resurrection rather than before?
99 And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh.
You said: “The other angel (v. 99) is John who has the keys over the pit as given in Rev. 1:18.”
V. 99 and Rev 1:18 says nothing about John having the keys to the pit. I don’t know where you are getting that assumption.
“JST Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last;
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death.
Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.
Rev 1:20 This is the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand and the seven golden candlesticks: The seven stars are the servants of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”
John is simply testifying of the events that are taking place. It is clearly someone else that holds the keys of death and hell. In fact, verse 20 informs us that john is not even one of the seven end times servants that go forth in the earth, which show up multiple times in scripture.
You might want to read the following article on the topic https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/5-that-ye-may-be-prepared-in-all-things-when-i-shall-send-you-again-the-mission-i-have-commissioned-you-to-go-forth-for-the-last-time/
You said: “The other angel (v. 99) is John who has the keys over the pit as given in Rev. 1:18. “
I see no substantiation in scripture to support the theory that John is the one that holds the key to the bottomless pit, where do you get that notion from?
You said: “Christ coming to the earth in Verse 99 is 1,000 years after Verses 96-98 because they have been in prison (v. 99). This Verse harmonizes with Rev. Chapter 20.”
I would strongly disagree with that. In fact verses 100 and 101 explain that it is actually the third group which includes both telestial spirits and SofP who are judged and found to be found under condemnation that finally come forth after the 1,000 years, not the second harvest terrestrial souls.
100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;
101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.
Christ descends to the second group of terrestrial souls BEFORE the 1,000 have ended”.
You said “So please correct me if I am wrong but the first fruits is the coming events in our time and the second fruits is 1,000 years from now.”
That is wrong. As demonstrated in vereses 100 and 101, the second fruits come forth BEFORE the 1,000 have ended.
Something that few saints understand and take into consideration, has to do with the “catching up” (or rapture as the protestants like to call it) that takes place.
Please read very carefully what Joseph Smith said about the events having to do with this catching up of the first harvest:
“[Joseph] Explained concerning the coming of the son of Man &c that all will be raised to meet him but the righteous will remain with him in the cloud whilst all the proud and all that do wickedly will have to return to the earth, and suffer his vengeance which he will take upon them this is the second death &c &c”
As you can see, to “come forth to meet him” does not necessarily mean resurrected (in the sense that we have been indoctrinated to define the term). Also, it is only the elect of God that are caught up in the first harvest that completely escape the wrath of God. Even the second harvest terrestrials that are found under condemnation and judged as men in the flesh, must first suffer the wrath of God for a while before they are redeemed from the prison because they did not accept the atonement while in the flesh. (See D&C 19:16-17,also 76:74) However they are redeemed from the prison and from the wrath of God before the 1,000 years are over. It is just the last two groups that must wait 1,000 before they “come forth” again.
The prophetic sequence of the last days is a very tricky subject. This is just my current understanding of things and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time and deny ever having said any of this LOL
Yes, Thank you. I like your current understanding of these things.
You said: “I don’t understand what your fixation is having to do with making Michael and John over two different groups. Perhaps you can explain what you mean, where it is supported in scripture, and why a significant distinction exists.”
In reference to Michael: I am not fixated but noticed in Verses 96-98 (in the previous post) the two references to the angel of the God. The first reference as “the pillar of heaven” (v. 97) and the second as “the angel of God” (v. 98). The pillar reference (v. 97) links to Rev. 10:1 wherein the mighty angel has “his feet as pillars of fire.” This angel is the seventh of the series beginning at Rev. 8:7-12 (angels 1-4), then angels 5 and 6 in Rev. Chapter 9, and lastly the seventh angel beginning at Rev. 10:1. This seventh angel also narrates (in my opinion) at Rev. 8:13 that links to Rev. 14:6 having the everlasting gospel preceding the fall of Babylon. Thus, the 144,000 are with Christ at Zion (Rev. 14:1) before the events of Rev. 9:1, having the everlasting gospel. Thus, Rev. 10:1 is parenthetical to Rev. Chapters 8 and 9 at Verse 8:13 showing that the message of this mighty angel that is Michael of Dan. 12, is to the first harvest. That is, the first harvest takes place at or before Rev. 8:13 and before the fall of Babylon. The point being that the “mighty angel” of Rev. 10:1 is Michael of Dan. 12 that brings the everlasting gospel (Rev. 14:6). Secondly, It is my opinion that Michael is the angel of God as referenced in Rev. 1:1, 10:8, 19:17 etc. and throughout scripture.
Side Note: Rev. Chapter 12 is an overlay to Rev. Chapters 9-11 (the 3 woes) in which Michael and his army prevail showing that Michael is one of the four horns at Rev. 9:13 and his army is the four angels of Rev. 9:14-15 as well as Rev. 7:1. Perhaps here at Rev. 7:1 some of the 144,000 are sealed but not all lending to a previous summation that the 144,000 are from all six dispensations and not specifically from the last days.
John on the other hand although the second of the two witnesses as evidenced in Rev. Chapters 10 and 11, has the keys over the damned as well as the telestial in prison (Rev. 1:18). I realize that we are not in agreement on this point however, Section 77 shows John’s participation is in gathering those of the everlasting gospel that are called the four angels (v. 9, 14), and it are those four angels that participate as Michael’s army (Rev. 12:7-12, 9:15). Thus, both Michael and John participate but having distinct responsibilities of which John’s is to the bottomless pit (Rev. 20:1-2) from which the telestial dead arise to their resurrection. This places John in authority to the second resurrection whereas Michael as the keynote speaker (Rev. 10:3) and presiding authority under Christ holds a presiding authority in the first harvest.
I got distracted during part of the podcast, so if you covered this already… Sorry.
D&C 20:1-2 references Joseph and Oliver as the first and second Elders of the church. If this was given in 1830, wouldn’t the higher priesthood have to be given by this time, since 84.29 says an Elder is an appendage belonging to the high priesthood.
84:30 also says that the offices teacher and deacon are necessary appendages, yet those offices were also given before the fullness of the high priesthood was restored.
But the teacher and deacon offices are appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which we know was restored before 1830. If an appendage is something added to a greater thing, can you have the appendage added without the greater thing already existing?
Joseph Smith said “All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it” (TPJS, p. 180). This is supported by D&C 107
At this point one could think that because an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek, it is the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood. But recall D&C 84:29
So elder is still an appendage, not the fullness. D&C 107 goes on to describe the relationship of the Aaronic to the Melchizedek:
All priesthood authority and power other than high priest, including deacon, teacher, priest, bishop, and elder, is an appendage to the greater originating priesthood authority and power, the high priesthood. By restoring the Aaronic Priesthood first, the Lord was beginning with an appendage. By restoring the office of elder, the Lord restored a second appendage. Only when the office of high priest was restored in June 1831 was the fullness of Melchizedek Priesthood restored. Remember, though, these are restorations, not creations.
Let’s also look at this from a linguistic perspective. Notice the definition given in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary:
As you can see, an appendage is “not necessary” to the greater thing. In the case of a house, the nature of the portico, not the chronological order in which it was built, determines its status as an appendage. The portico could be built at the same time as the house, yet it is still an appendage. In the case of priesthood restoration, these appendage priesthoods were designed to specifically be used when the fullness was not available. The high priesthood was what was given to Adam and his descendants. The Aaronic priesthood was created after the fullness of the Melchizedek needed to be removed during Moses’ time. So the Melchizedek Priesthood did exist before the appendages were created. And we know that the high priesthood is without beginning or end, it still exists even when we don’t have it on earth. The Aaronic appendage was created in Moses’ day and restored in 1829 to prepare the way for the restoration of the fullness of the Melchizedek back to the earth.
This concept is supported in the statement of John the Baptist who acknowledges that he was acting under the priesthood direction of Peter James and John and that his restoration of the Aaronic priesthood on this side of the veil would be followed at a later time by the restoration of higher priesthood keys which existed at that time, but only on the other side of the veil:
Over your podcasts, you guys have made references to parts of the current D and C or History of the Church that have been altered from the original documents. Do you have a list of these changes compiled anywhere? Or know of one that exists? Thanks for the podcasts.
I have been capturing the changes to the D&C in the Reformatted Scriptures (https://measuringdoctrine.com/reformatted-scriptures/). The vast majority of those changes were intentional changes Joseph made between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. But take a look at D&C 110 – that’s a significant change Brigham made.
As for changes to the History of the Church, I’m not aware of any compilation, though I would love to find one. It’s time consuming to dig through the Joseph Smith papers and compare the original version against the History of the Church. Often we’ll find them simply because something doesn’t feel right and we decide to check the original.
Catching up on all of these podcast. I just have a question. In D&C 27:12 Joseph Smith is ordained an apostle. From D&C 20:38 it says that an apostle is an elder. D&C 107:7 says an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek. Doesn’t that mean that when Peter, James, and John ordained Joseph to the apostleship that they had to have had conferred upon him the Melchizedek priesthood?
One challenge we face is that many of the descriptions of priesthood were retroactively added to the scriptures after the fullness had been lost. The verses in both D&C 27 and D&C 107 were added in 1835 and do not appear in the original manuscripts or the 1833 Book of Commandments. So after the fullness had been lost, Joseph began adding descriptions, and they aren’t all crystal clear.
What isn’t discussed in D&C 107 is the Patriarchal priesthood. We catch glimpses of it in the scriptures.
D&C 86:8-10
Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers–for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God–therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.
Section 86 was given in 1832. Who in 1832 had received priesthood through the lineage of their fathers? That can’t be Melchizedek Priesthood, that was restored in June 1831. It can’t be Aaronic Priesthood, that was May 1829.
D&C 107 gives a description of the evangelical, or patriarchal, priesthood in verses 40-57:
The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made. This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage…[the rest of the section describes all of Adam’s descendants who were ordained to this evangelical order of priesthood which is passed from father to son (aka patriarchal)].
Abraham 2:9-11 also talks about this priesthood being promised to Abraham’s literal seed, and that it is to bear the ministry of preaching the Gospel. You can then compare that to JST Genesis 14 where the Melchizedek Priesthood does not come by lineage.
Just as the Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood, it appears that the Patriarchal, or Evangelical, Priesthood is also an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the office of elder appears to be part of the Patriarchal Priesthood.