Priesthood restoration discrepancies


Queolby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.

Also, Bushman suggests that the Peter James and John visit was to establish the office of Apostle.

Thanks for your time.

Edited by Queolby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, there are some issues with the dating of the MP restoration that I haven’t completely resolved to my satisfaction.  For example, Oliver Cowdery (I think!) recounts that the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood happened in the immediate aftermath of Joseph’s escaping official custody while being escorted to trial, or something along those lines.  But the trial to which he is referring happened after the Church was organized.   So, was the Church organized under the authority of the Melchiezedek Priesthood, or the Aaronic Priesthood?  I understand that by the time of his excommunication David Whitmer argues that the whole “higher priesthood” thing was an unauthorized innovation; and early revelations have a confusing degree of ambiguity because they don’t clearly distinguish between “high priesthood” as a catch-all term for the Melchizedek Priesthood; versus “high priesthood” as a reference to the specific office of high priest.  

It may be that our conventional simplistic narrative about the Melchizedek Priesthood constituting the authority to run the church and confer the Gift of the Holy Ghost is overly simplistic, and that the MP is actually more tied to temple work and the Patriarchal Order.  Alternatively, maybe some of the “limitations” we associate with the Aaronic Priesthood are ad hoc in nature, rather than something inherent to that order.  Ancient Israel functioned for centuries with its ecclesiastical apparatus being administered by the Aaronic Priesthood; so the notion that the Church of Christ may have done the same between 1830-1831 isn’t earth-shattering for me.  

I just wish Joseph Smith had been more careful to contemporaneously document the MP restoration, whenever it did happen.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.
Thanks for your time.

So I’m not 100% positive of the context of when this event happened so I can’t give a specific detailed explanation of what is happening, but here are some little factual tidbits that may help

1. The church as it was in its infancy was not what it is today. Joseph and Oliver were given the Aaronic priesthood before they were baptized, then used that priesthood to baptize each other. Today we have policy’s in place that change this to make the process more streamlined. Does not mean that it is impossible for it happen the way it did above. Additionally, Joseph’s title was originally only an elder. 

 Essentially  as the restoration went on it got more and more organized. Like all things, the church had to be built line upon line precept upon precept. Nothing was done out of order, just not done in the same way we do today. 

2. The priesthood was restored before the church was organized. So Joseph and Oliver both got the priesthood before they could be ordained to any office in the church. Similarly, I remember being taught that Joseph had to be baptized twice once After receiving the aaronic priesthood, and a second time when the church was actually organized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, @Queolby,  props to you for reading the book and setting about the history of the church.  books like that and Mormon Enigma are fantastic ways for us to get to know the church a little bit more. There are  A lot of gems and what Paul would call “meat” found in those books. They also help us see Joseph Smith and the restoration as what really was, a bunch of saints doing the best they can but nevertheless bringing forth truth God proclaimed.

 Always remember that you were never the first person asking a question. There are answers to all these out there, we just have to look for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 

Without reading the rest of your post yet, this first sentence seems to imply you faith is based on church history.

I'm suspecting you know the answer to this, so if so, consider it rhetorical: what should your faith be based on?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Without reading the rest of your post yet, this first sentence seems to imply you faith is based on church history.

I'm suspecting you know the answer to this, so if so, consider it rhetorical: what should your faith be based on?

That's a good question. I don't know what it's based on anymore. 

A critic named Dan Vogel writes about church history and the Book of Mormon. He has a narrative that I can't stop thinking about whenever I study the Gospel. His narrative is that Joseph was a pious fraud and that he had 'born again' experience like anyone else and that he really believed that he was a prophet but that he would lie to create stronger faith with his Saints. And Vogel would show things where Joseph was possibly making it up as he was going along, I.e the first vision and priesthood discrepancies. And that multiple people had seer stones and used them like Joseph did. It was not unusual for people to claim visitations from angels or from heavenly Father and Jesus in his era or spirits guarding treasures. Joseph was just like any of these other people in his culture but he just happened to make a religion out of it. The four years he spent trying to get the plates he was actually creating a narrative for a book and making the plates. 

Dan Vogel knows how to take away the significance of church history. These are concerns I have kept in the back of my mind before I discovered Vogel and now he is sympathizing with them perfectly.

 

Edited by Queolby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Queolby said:

That's a good question. I don't know what it's based on anymore. 

A critic named Dan Vogel writes about church history and the Book of Mormon. He has a narrative that I can't stop thinking about whenever I study the Gospel. His narrative is that Joseph was a pious fraud and that he had 'born again' experience like anyone else and that he really believed that he was a prophet but that he would lie to create stronger faith with his Saints. And Vogel would show things where Joseph was possibly making it up as he was going along, I.e the first vision and priesthood discrepancies. And that multiple people had seer stones and used them like Joseph did. It was not unusual for people to claim visitations from angels or from heavenly Father and Jesus in his era or spirits guarding treasures. Joseph was just like any of these other people in his culture but he just happened to make a religion out of it. The four years he spent trying to get the plates he was actually creating a narrative for a book and making the plates. 

Dan Vogel knows how to take away the significance of church history. These are concerns I have kept in the back of my mind before I discovered Vogel and now he is sympathizing with them perfectly.

 

Couple thoughts and suggestions.

1) look up fairmormon. They are a great source to go to with your questions.

2) look up ex-ex-Mormon by saints unscripted in YouTube. Very interesting

3) I think we as saints put Joseph Smith on too high of a Pedestal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fether said:

Couple thoughts and suggestions.

1) look up fairmormon. They are a great source to go to with your questions.

2) look up ex-ex-Mormon by saints unscripted in YouTube. Very interesting

3) I think we as saints put Joseph Smith on too high of a Pedestal. 

I love Dusty Smith.

I've seen the apologetics for Dan Vogel on FAIR and they have almost nothing on him. I have written fairmormon about this stuff but they don't respond to me anymore haha.

 

And it's true. We do put Joseph on a high pedestal.

 

Anyways, thanks for giving me your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 hours ago, Queolby said:

 I don't know what it's based on anymore. 

 

 

I love your honesty bro. I'm praying for you. Stay strong my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/4/2019 at 5:32 PM, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.

Also, Bushman suggests that the Peter James and John visit was to establish the office of Apostle.

Thanks for your time.

I won't pretend I'm an expert on all of your concerns brother, and I'm sorry you are struggling with your faith. I second @Fether comments about the church being restored line upon line. Things were done differently when it was first restored, and that's ok.

Before you allow this Dan Vogel, or any other critic of the church to shake your testimony, remember a few things. First, there are always discrepancies in any historical record (trust me I speak from experience as an amateur historian). Sometimes, we don't allow our forebears to be human. They were just as flawed as you and me. Sometimes they misremembered dates, mixed up events in their heads, wrote things down in an unclear way thinking others would be familiar with events they described when we aren't, and a host of other issues. The human brain is not a video recording.

Second, and this is most important, all of these arguments about Joseph being a "pious fraud" make the same mistake we sometimes do. They put him on a huge pedastel. How? They seem to believe he was a genius, since he created the Book of Mormon from whole cloth in their view. They never, ever explain how this backwoods, unschooled, "pious fraud" created this brilliant piece of literature, filled with Chiasmus, Hebraisms, signs of multiple authors, and testimonies about Christ. People who knew and loved Joseph said that he was too unlearned to pull it out of whole cloth (see Emma's testimony about Jospeh not knowing Jerusalem had a wall). How did this "pious fraud" always start back up where he left off when translating? According to the eyewitnesses he never needed portions of the manuscript read back to him when starting a day of translating. I couldn't do that when I was writing a 5 page college paper. Can you imagine doing it with a detailed, intricate, religious book, especially when you didn't make it past a 6th grade education? And finally, and this is most important, how did this "pious fraud" create a book that causes the Holy Ghost to burn within our hearts when we read its words? The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion for a reason. It's a living, breathing testimony of the truthfullness of God's work that can't just be explained away. Either it's true and everything else is, or it's not and and everthing else is false as well. There are always going to be problems in the historical record, some of which I hope are satisfactorily solved some day, but if your testimony is suffering, put down the scholarly papers and pick up the Book of Mormon again. I will be praying for you brother, and I hope you are able to find some peace @Queolby

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Queolby said:

That's a good question. I don't know what it's based on anymore. 

A critic named Dan Vogel writes about church history and the Book of Mormon. He has a narrative that I can't stop thinking about whenever I study the Gospel. His narrative is that Joseph was a pious fraud and that he had 'born again' experience like anyone else and that he really believed that he was a prophet but that he would lie to create stronger faith with his Saints. And Vogel would show things where Joseph was possibly making it up as he was going along, I.e the first vision and priesthood discrepancies. And that multiple people had seer stones and used them like Joseph did. It was not unusual for people to claim visitations from angels or from heavenly Father and Jesus in his era or spirits guarding treasures. Joseph was just like any of these other people in his culture but he just happened to make a religion out of it. The four years he spent trying to get the plates he was actually creating a narrative for a book and making the plates. 

Dan Vogel knows how to take away the significance of church history. These are concerns I have kept in the back of my mind before I discovered Vogel and now he is sympathizing with them perfectly.

 

 

13 hours ago, Fether said:

1) look up fairmormon. They are a great source to go to with your questions.

Fairmormon should not be the source of one's faith.

Quote

2) look up ex-ex-Mormon by saints unscripted in YouTube. Very interesting

I have no idea what this is -- but I guarantee it won't fix one's faith.

Quote

3) I think we as saints put Joseph Smith on too high of a Pedestal. 

...

2 hours ago, Queolby said:

And it's true. We do put Joseph on a high pedestal.

Putting Joseph Smith "on a pedestal" or not has nothing to do with where and why we have a testimony and where and why we exercise faith.

 

First, @Queolby, understand the difference between testimony and faith. A testimony is something you've experienced that you can bear witness of. Faith is a commitment to a belief. Someone can have a testimony but no faith. Someone can exercise faith without a testimony.

Both are required.

Do you have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel? That question isn't about historical study, because we NEVER (or should never, at least) be bearing witness that we studied history and concluded the gospel is true. That is not the witness that matters, nor is it a reliable witness because it relies upon the arm of flesh. God has explicitly warned us to not rely upon the arm of flesh. Stop relying upon the arm of flesh.

God can only be known from God through the Holy Spirit.

What we bear witness of -- give testimony of -- is that God Himself has told us of the truthfulness of something through the Holy Spirit. He has given us the promise of this, which you should be well familiar with, but I'll repeat here for good measure. In Moroni 10: 3-5 we read:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

If you have been through this experience and you have been given an answer then you have a testimony -- because you can bear witness that you have been through this and the Spirit of God has spoken to you. If you have not been through this then you cannot testify of such a thing, and you have no testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and thereby the truth that Joseph Smith was what he said he was).

If you have a testimony to offer, then you are failing to exercise faith in that. You are forgetting or ignoring it.

If you do not have a testimony then your responsibility is to get one through the means given in The Book of Mormon. Read it, ponder it, and ask God in Christ's name as to its truthfulness with honest, humble intent.

Then exercise faith in the answer given.

If you have had such an experience then you are faltering in your faith. You need to remember. You need to get back to the scriptures, get back on your knees, and strive with all diligence for your faith to be shored up. And choose. Faith is a choice.

NONE OF THESE THINGS COME THROUGH STUDYING HISTORY!

The study of church history is a useful tool if and when it comes from a place of faith based on a sure testimony as given from God by the Holy Ghost. It is not, nor can it ever be, a tool to create or destroy a witness of something that does not come from the unreliable. Even the best study of history is NOT RELIABLE.

God is reliable. Turn to Him. Do as He has asked. Read His words as given by His prophets, and then follow His counsel, asking for His sure word and comfort as promised.

That is the source and means of faith and testimony.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.

Also, Bushman suggests that the Peter James and John visit was to establish the office of Apostle.

Thanks for your time.

Conferral of the priesthood is one thing and ordination to an office in the priesthood is another. The priesthood was restored by conferral by Peter, James and John; Joseph and Oliver could then ordain each other to their respective offices, which of course changed over time.

Kind of the same thing when Alma and Helam baptized each other, and Joseph and Oliver baptized each other. You simply do what you're commanded, in the order commanded.

But pray and strive for faith, hope and charity and you will overcome your struggles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.

Also, Bushman suggests that the Peter James and John visit was to establish the office of Apostle.

Thanks for your time.

Sorry for your confusion:

#1.  All Priesthood is Melchizedek 

#2. There are two lessors orders of the Melchizedek Priesthood - The Aaronic Priesthood and the Levitical Priesthood.   John held the Levitical Priesthood but being the good Jewish son that he was he called it the Priesthood of Aaron - not to be confused with the Aaronic Priesthood - as you obviously have.  With the Levitical Priesthood and being a direct descendant of Aaron someone can serve as a bishop and can ordain others to the priesthood.  We have examples of this in scripture where offices of the priesthood were maintained without the higher orders of the priesthood of Melchizedek.  

But for you I will reference Isaiah as he testified before king Ahaz when he said in essence - The reason that you do not believe these things is because you are not loyal to your covenants.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Fairmormon should not be the source of one's faith.

I have no idea what this is -- but I guarantee it won't fix one's faith.

...

Putting Joseph Smith "on a pedestal" or not has nothing to do with where and why we have a testimony and where and why we exercise faith.

 

First, @Queolby, understand the difference between testimony and faith. A testimony is something you've experienced that you can bear witness of. Faith is a commitment to a belief. Someone can have a testimony but no faith. Someone can exercise faith without a testimony.

Both are required.

Do you have a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel? That question isn't about historical study, because we NEVER (or should never, at least) be bearing witness that we studied history and concluded the gospel is true. That is not the witness that matters, nor is it a reliable witness because it relies upon the arm of flesh. God has explicitly warned us to not rely upon the arm of flesh. Stop relying upon the arm of flesh.

God can only be known from God through the Holy Spirit.

What we bear witness of -- give testimony of -- is that God Himself has told us of the truthfulness of something through the Holy Spirit. He has given us the promise of this, which you should be well familiar with, but I'll repeat here for good measure. In Moroni 10: 3-5 we read:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

If you have been through this experience and you have been given an answer then you have a testimony -- because you can bear witness that you have been through this and the Spirit of God has spoken to you. If you have not been through this then you cannot testify of such a thing, and you have no testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon (and thereby the truth that Joseph Smith was what he said he was).

If you have a testimony to offer, then you are failing to exercise faith in that. You are forgetting or ignoring it.

If you do not have a testimony then your responsibility is to get one through the means given in The Book of Mormon. Read it, ponder it, and ask God in Christ's name as to its truthfulness with honest, humble intent.

Then exercise faith in the answer given.

If you have had such an experience then you are faltering in your faith. You need to remember. You need to get back to the scriptures, get back on your knees, and strive with all diligence for your faith to be shored up. And choose. Faith is a choice.

NONE OF THESE THINGS COME THROUGH STUDYING HISTORY!

The study of church history is a useful tool if and when it comes from a place of faith based on a sure testimony as given from God by the Holy Ghost. It is not, nor can it ever be, a tool to create or destroy a witness of something that does not come from the unreliable. Even the best study of history is NOT RELIABLE.

God is reliable. Turn to Him. Do as He has asked. Read His words as given by His prophets, and then follow His counsel, asking for His sure word and comfort as promised.

That is the source and means of faith and testimony.

giphy.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“When problems come and questions arise, do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! Let me be clear on this point: I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account: Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 7/4/2019 at 4:32 PM, Queolby said:

Lately I've been struggling with my faith a little bit. I'm finding things in church history that have too much ambiguity for me to be satisfied. 
One of the problems is that there seems to be a discrepancy in restoring the priesthood. There is an account of Joseph and Oliver talking about ordaining each other to the Melchizedek priesthood without being ordained first. And giving the gift of the Holy Ghost without the higher priesthood. This doesn't fit well with LDS narrative. Here it is: 

"While finishing up the translation at the Whitmers’, Joseph continued to think about John the Baptist’s promise of a higher priesthood. He and Cowdery, he wrote years later, “had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length we got together in the Chamber of Mr Whitmer’s house in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired.” Here, to their “unspeakable satisfaction,” their prayers were answered, “for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord, came unto us in the Chamber, commanding us; that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ, And that he also should ordain me to the same office, and then to ordain others as it should be made known unto us, from time to time.” They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.” At that time they were to bless bread and wine, call out others to be ordained, and, by laying on hands, give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized."

I got this from Rough Stone rolling but if you want Bushman's sources let me know and I can get them. Also I know that Dan Vogel talks about this too.

Also, Bushman suggests that the Peter James and John visit was to establish the office of Apostle.

Thanks for your time.

You say "ambiguity".  Why does "ambiguity" bother you?  That's why we have the Spirit -- to guide us.  Perhaps you mean "contradiction"?

Since I believe you seem to think there is a contradiction, I'll address that.  Your particular concern is that you're interpreting the idea that they were ordaining each other to the office of elder without any Melch. PH to begin with.  Not correct.

Your quote even says:

Quote

They were not to ordain each other immediately but to await a time when all who had been baptized could be assembled to accept Joseph and Cowdery as “spiritual teachers.”

So, in the intevening time, they received the Melch. PH from Peter, James, and John.  After having such conferred upon them, they gathered the meeting of Saints as commanded.  And then they performed the ordinations.

Remember to actually read WHAT IS THERE, not what Dan Vogel SAYS is there.  You'll find that a lot of what is said is just smoke and mirrors.  Vogle SAYS they never received the higher priesthood.  What does he base that on?  Even in the quote you provided it gives a window of time for them to have received it.  It would only take a few minutes for the conferral to have taken place.  And we're told in MULITPLE places that it did occur.  Are you feeling betrayed simply because the details of it were left out?  Who says you need them?  Dan Vogel?  Why are you listening to him?

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that you're willing to listen to one man (Vogel) who's trying to Monday Morning Quarteback but are unwilling to listen to the written records of two men (Joseph and Oliver)?  Vogel tells you that something is there which I've clearly shown is NOT there.  But you're willing to believe him over people who simply gave a first hand account of their personal experience?

Listen to the Spirit and it will lead you in the right direction.  Listen to a man with ill intent, and he will lead you astray.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another important thing to keep in mind:

Boyd K. Packer:

Quote

"The priesthood is greater than any of its offices. When someone first receives the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood, it is conferred upon him by the laying on of hands. After the priesthood has been conferred upon him, he is ordained to an office in the priesthood. All offices derive their authority from the priesthood. The priesthood is not divisible. An elder holds as much priesthood as an Apostle (see D&C 20:38). When a man receives the priesthood, he receives all of it. However, there are offices within the priesthood —divisions of authority and responsibility."

Thus, an "office" in the Priesthood applies to how authority is divided and delegated within the church.

When Peter, James, and John gave Joseph and Oliver the Melchizedek Priesthood, they received the whole Priesthood. However, it only became necessary to ordain themselves to the office of "Elders" once the church had been formally organized, and they were given responsibilities within the Church.

Similarly, when the Church was formally organized, several individuals (including Joseph and Oliver) had already been baptized for the "remission of sins" under the Aaronic Priesthood and had received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands under the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, upon formally organizing the church on April 6th, everyone who had already been baptized was re-baptized, in this case to be baptized into the Church and subsequently confirmed a member of the Church.

We have to remember that restrictions and rules on ordaining people aren't always because of authority, but because of permission. The rule that an "Elder" can't ordain someone to be a "High Priest" if he himself is not yet a High Priest isn't because he doesn't have the Priesthood to do so. Rather, it is because he doesn't have permission to do so according to the rules that have been provided by the person holding all the keys. In fact, even today, a Stake President is allowed to ordain someone to be a Patriarch, even if he himself has never been ordained to the office of Patriarch, as long as he has received permission to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/9/2019 at 7:27 AM, Mores said:

That's why we have the Spirit -- to guide us.  Perhaps you mean "contradiction"?

Remember to actually read WHAT IS THERE, not what Dan Vogel SAYS is there. 

Listen to the Spirit and it will lead you in the right direction.  Listen to a man with ill intent, and he will lead you astray.

I remember being presented with an aspect of history that shocked me, especially discovering for myself that in part the history and recordings showed this to be true. In my heart I said, "This can't be true." Then the Spirit spoke to me saying, "It is true." I said, "It can't be." The Spirit repeated once again to me, "It is true."

I then realized how important the second sentence is above. People will insert their interpretation to historical events. If they are pro-Church they will insert their positive interpretation. If they are anti-Church they will insert their negative interpretation to sow seeds of doubt -- because misery likes company. The Spirit told me the history is true. The Spirit also made it clear that I will leave "interpretation" and "judgement" to God. It has never been a question sense.

The Spirit will always speak the truth, and will never lead us astray. Whereas disgruntled members, antis, and others will look for any loophole they can -- insert their interpretation -- in order to sow seeds of doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I remember being presented with an aspect of history that shocked me, especially discovering for myself that in part the history and recordings showed this to be true. In my heart I said, "This can't be true." Then the Spirit spoke to me saying, "It is true." I said, "It can't be." The Spirit repeated once again to me, "It is true."

I then realized how important the second sentence is above. People will insert their interpretation to historical events. If they are pro-Church they will insert their positive interpretation. If they are anti-Church they will insert their negative interpretation to sow seeds of doubt -- because misery likes company. The Spirit told me the history is true. The Spirit also made it clear that I will leave "interpretation" and "judgement" to God. It has never been a question sense.

The Spirit will always speak the truth, and will never lead us astray. Whereas disgruntled members, antis, and others will look for any loophole they can -- insert their interpretation -- in order to sow seeds of doubt.

Actually I love the statement from Isaiah to king Ahaz when he said, in essence, "Because you are not loyal to your covenants you cannot understand (believe) the truth."

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Actually I love the statement from Isaiah to king Ahaz when he said, in essence, "Because you are not loyal to your covenants you cannot understand (believe) the truth."

The Traveler

Yes, this is an excellent verse of scripture. If we are loyal to our covenants we will "always" have the Spirit with us. If we have the Spirit with us we will be guided, comforted, and lead down the straight and narrow path.

I have heard some say, that not everybody leaves the Church because of "sin." I don't agree with these statements. There are sins of omission and sins of commission. Sin is the only reason why testimony is lost (often that sin is "omission" rather than commission).

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Yes, this is an excellent verse of scripture. If we are loyal to our covenants we will "always" have the Spirit with us. If we have the Spirit with us we will be guided, comforted, and lead down the straight and narrow path.

I have heard some say, that not everybody leaves the Church because of "sin." I don't agree with these statements. There are sins of omission and sins of commission. Sin is the only reason why testimony is lost (often that sin is "omission" rather than commission).

I think the reason some believe as you have said is because disloyalty is not always evident - but eventually over time it will always come to light.  Some may say that they paid their tithing, they read their scriptures daily, they went regularly to the temple and they did all that was asked of them then something went wrong.  Often a perceived failure, perhaps by a member or spouse they trusted.   But after they leave, whatever the excuse, they will turn from things that are far from their "church" devotions but are necessary to maintain a relationship with G-d (as basic as the 10 commandments).  Perhaps there is someone that left the Church to become more loving, compassionate and themself more disciplined from the things of the world - but I have never seen it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Sin is the only reason why testimony is lost

On a side note: Testimonies are very rarely actually lost. Faith is lost. Or, rather, faith is abandoned. If testimonies were actually lost (like somehow we had amnesia) then we'd hardly be accountable for that (unless the actions that caused amnesia was intentional (as is sometimes the case)).

Also, maybe someone can correct me, but I don't believe there is any commandment to have a testimony anywhere. There is a commandment to believe. There is a commandment to have faith. And there are promises related to those choices. But losing a testimony (assuming one could) wouldn't damn us if we choose to continue  exercising faith and belief.

The primary spiritual experience I had whereby I can testify of the Savior, for example, is an actual experience that I had. It's not something I can actually forget. I can ignore it...put it aside, etc., and pretend like I don't remember it. But when I stand before my Savior at judgment day I will not be able to deny that experience any more than those who have had similar experiences will be able to deny theirs. And for ignoring it, I would be accountable.

And...on top of that...it's interesting to consider your statement in terms of faith (assuming it read "Sin is the only reason why faith is lost"). That is truth like saying car crashes are the only reasons car accidents happen. Because not having faith is a sin. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share