The restoration of God’s authority on Earth is the hallmark of LDS Church; the very thing which separates Mormonism from all others. This event is officially suggested to have occurred in an unknown location, on an unknown day in May 1829, and boils down to just a few sentences of altered scripture, inserted years after the fact into mundane, previously canonized LDS scripture. The new scripture, and the event itself, lack the customary corroborating context – such as scribe notes, journal entries, press materials, first or second hand accounts. Similar to Joseph’s first vision, which was not mentioned to family, acquaintances or the Church for almost 20 years, the restoration of God’s authority also passed without mention. The admitted alteration remains the only supporting documentation which speaks to the visit of John the Baptist, Peter, James and John.
The late appearance of the restoration narrative occurred during an intensely challenging period for Joseph Smith, who faced criticism, authority challenges and accusations of adultery and polygamy. Further, the Book of Mormon remains silent regarding the restoration of priesthood authority or its importance in the latter-day work of the Lord. Even Richard Bushman, esteemed LDS historian, observed that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.” (Rough Stone Rolling, p. 75)
This remains the most damning of the various alterations because of the priesthood’s critical importance to LDS authority claims, and the clear manner in which the episode is evidenced within original LDS scripture; no “anti-Mormon” sources are involved.
The Book of Commandments (BoC), which contained a compilation of significant early revelations, was printed in 1833 with very limited distribution before the printing press was destroyed by Mormon opponents. It is this official publication which remains the baseline against which latter alterations are compared. The Book of Commandments was expanded and revised in 1835 to become the Doctrine &Covenants (D&C).
In the revised edition, D&C Section 27 was suddenly expanded to include over 400 additional words that did not previously exist in the same canonized BoC section. The expansion delivers the Church’s totally unique authority claims, and is the very first mention of John the Baptist, later Peter, James and John appearing to bestow additional authority. Prior to the publication of the revised D&C, nobody had heard any such story. To this day, not a single document, journal, scribe note or second-hand account exists to support the fabricated D&C text; the idea simply did not previously exist.
Dan Vogel observed, “Indeed, there was nothing thus far in the Book of Mormon to cause Smith and Cowdery to seek angelic ordination. Alma received authority to baptize through the Spirit (Mosiah 18:13). Similarly, Alma II taught that holders of the high priesthood were preordained to their office (Alma 13:3), and Jesus’ commission to Nephi and other disciples seem to have been conveyed verbally (3 Nephi 11:21). In this setting, the subsequent claim to angelic ordination seems anachronistic.” (Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, Vogel, p. 307)
The Church is in possession of Wilford Woodruff’s original, signed Book of Commandments, yet for many decades refused to make the contents public. Upon learning that the Tanners, prominent Mormon history researchers, had secured the first 41 pages, the Church expressly forbade BYU from allowing them additional access. Like Joseph’s original 1832 first vision account, which the Church intentionally hid for decades, the Tanners were the reason members learned about these significant alterations. It is remarkably ironic that the Church does not want its members to view their most sacred texts, while non-believers vigorously pursue original works and publication.
Note that the heading to the current D&C 27 states that a portion of the revelation was received in September 1830 (all the Priesthood restoration stuff); but it wasn’t. Following the publication of the revised D&C in 1835, the Church also retroactively reprinted numerous issues of Times & Seasons, which contained many original revelations, thereby obscuring the language of critical original documents.
Consolidation of Power
The restoration text was created in 1834-5 as Joseph and Oliver consolidated power by no longer conceding that the authority to do what God commanded was inherent in God’s command. Members now had to wait for angelic ordination, specifically permission/ordination by Joseph who had exclusively been ordained by angels.
Many argue that the timing of Smith’s newfound authority coincided rather conveniently with Benjamin Johnson’s rumors of Joseph finding “relief” with his teenage housemaid Fanny Alger, and David Whitmer’s vocal concerns about changing revelations and expanded powers; all of which Smith hypocritically denied.
Ironically, LDS apologists suggest that Joseph and Oliver remained secretive about their restored authority due to intense persecution. Yet they ultimately delivered the public reveal during some of the most intense persecution in their histories. The church in Kirtland was in a state of total rebellion, both men faced certain arrest and additional convictions if they returned to the jurisdiction, and were being challenged even by those who fled with them to Far West.
Dan Vogel observed, “While this might explain why they didn’t tell the residents of Harmony, at least for the two weeks they remained in that neighborhood, it doesn’t explain why Smith and Cowdery kept this information from the Whitmer family and others who joined the church in Fayette, which neighborhood Smith admitted was a much friendlier to his message. Nor does it explain why he maintained this secrecy for nearly five years in Ohio and Missouri.”
The Church’s own records indicate that this part of D&C 27 was not received in September 1830 – no customary entry written in the Book of Revelation, no letter memorializing it, no witness or scribe affirming its recording.
In addition to the easily compared BoC and D&C sections, evidence shows that the second angelic restoration of authority could not have occurred before the Church’s organization on April 6, 1830. (Mormon Hierarchy p. 5-18) The Church works very hard to hide this Achilles heel by avoiding the reality within its own documentation.
- Evolution of Early Mormon Priesthood Narratives, John Whitmer Historical Assn, vol. 34, 2014
- Side-by-Side Comparison – Chapter 28 in the 1833 Book of Commandments can be compared to the significantly expanded, renumbered D&C Chapter 27.
WITNESSES TO ALTERATIONS
David Whitmer, one of the golden plate witnesses and founding member of the Church, confirmed, “I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834, 5 or 6… I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver…” (Zenas Gurley Jr., Questions asked of David Whitmer at his home in Richmond, MO, Jan 14, 1885 / EMD 5:137).
Whitmer further elaborated on his witness to alterations. “Some of the revelations as they now appear in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added to. Some of the changes being the greatest importance as the meaning is entirely changed on some very important matters; as if the Lord had changed his mind a few years after he gave the revelations…The revelations were printed in the Book of Commandments correctly. This I know, and will prove it to you.”
“When the Book of Commandments was printed, Joseph and the Church received it as being printed correctly. This I know. In the winter of 1834 they saw that some of the revelations in the Book of Commandments had to be changed, because the heads of the Church had gone too far, and had done things in which they had already gone ahead of some of the former revelations. So the book of Doctrine and Covenants was printed in 1835, and some of the revelations changed and added to.”
“There is nothing in the New Testament part of either the Bible or Book of Mormon concerning a one-man leader or head to the church… And we had no such an office in the Church in these last days for the first eight months of its existence, until Brother Joseph went into this error on April 6, 1830, and, after unwittingly breaking a command of God by taking upon himself such an office, in a few years those revelations were changed to admit this high office, which otherwise would have condemned it. They were changed to mean something entirely different from the way they were first given and printed in Book of Commandments; as if God had not thought of this great and important office when he gave those revelations.”
“I see that some of you claim that the same power which gave these revelations, had authority to change them, and refer to Jeremiah 36:32. By reading this passage you will see that the words which were added were “like words;” words which conveyed the same meaning — were added to that book by Jeremiah when he was writing it over again, because it had been burned in the fire by the king. But the words added to the two former revelations are not “like words,” as they change and reverse the original meaning.” (An Address To All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer)
THIRD PARTY CONFIRMATION OF ALTERATIONS
Lucy Mack Smith’s (Joseph’s mother) 1831 letter to her brother defending the Church lacks any mention of any angel or authority restoration.
Joseph Knight, in 1833, wrote a history of important events in Mormonism up to that year, yet makes no reference to either John Baptist or Peter, James, John. This omission is very significant because his history is the only LDS source for details of angel Moroni’s annual visits with the Smith from 1823 to 1827.
William McLellin shared, “As to the story of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver on the day they were baptized; I never heard of it in the church for years, altho I carefully noticed things that were said.”(McLellin to Joseph Smith III, July 1872) William’s story remained consistent, reporting years later, “I joined the church in 1831. For years I never heard of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver. I heard not of James, Peter, and John doing so… (McLellin to J.L. Traughber, Aug 25, 1877)
Richard Bushman, perhaps the most prominent Mormon historian, suggests a July 1830 restoration timeframe, contradicting the official LDS suggestion of April. He notes that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication” (Rough Stone Rolling, p. 75 / Mormon Hierarchy p. 19-26)
B.H. Roberts wrote, “There is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals… This lack of historical proof will not alter belief in the divine commission. These matters are to be accepted by faith.” (History of the Church, 1:40. Paragraphs believed to substantiate the priesthood restoration in D&C 18:9; 20:2, 3 ; 27:12; 128:20 are cited.)
Joseph F. Smith and Orson Hyde asked David Whitmer “Can you tell the date of the restoration of the Apostleship by Peter, James, and John?” He replied: “I do not know, Joseph never told me. I can only tell you what I know: I will not testify to anything I do not know.” (Cook, David Whitmer Interviews p. 25)
Grant Palmer observed that “by degrees, the accounts [of LDS priesthood restoration] became more detailed and more miraculous.… Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened.… The most plausible explanation is that they were retrofitted to an 1829-30 time period to give the impression that an impressive and unique authority had existed in the church from the beginning.”
LaMar Petersen: “There seems to be no support for the historicity of the Restoration of the Priesthood … prior to October, 1834.” (Problems in Mormon Text, p. 8)
Michael Quinn informs us that “men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year after the Church’s founding. No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35.” (Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p. 15)
WHAT IS PRIESTHOOD?
The story of the priesthood restoration is far more complicated than most members understand. In biblical times, priesthood wasn’t spoken of as an abstract principle independent of priests. Priesthood was simply a state or quality of being a priest. It wasn’t receiving the priesthood that made one a priest, but rather being made a priest gave one priesthood – just as being dubbed a knight gives one knighthood. The New Testament doesn’t explicitly state that the priesthood was given to any of Christ’s disciples. (This is My Doctrine p. 373-6)
The LDS Church today teaches that there are two priesthoods: Aaronic and Melchizedek. We also use the word “priesthood” for an array of overlapping but subtly distinct concepts, such as priesthood power, priesthood authority, priesthood keys, priesthood offices, priesthood blessings, priesthood leaders, priesthood quorums, and priesthood ordinances. In the modern LDS church, priesthood is everywhere, and always patriarchal.
This immersion in the modern Church’s understanding of “priesthood” can make it difficult for us to put ourselves in the shoes of members who were present at the time of its restoration. To accurately understand events as they unfolded, we must attempt to imagine how the revelations would have been seen by the first converts, who came from Methodist, Baptist, and other backgrounds. The editors of the Joseph Smith Papers project have noted that this difficulty was present even as far back as the 1838-1839, when later terminology was already being retroactively applied to early church events:
Additionally, the narrative itself, composed beginning in 1838, necessarily reflects the perspective of Joseph Smith and his collaborators at the time of its production, thus inadvertently introducing terminology and concepts that were not operative a decade earlier in the period the narrative describes. Examples include using later priesthood nomenclature such as “Aaronic” and “Melchizedek” and calling the church Smith established “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” a name not designated until 1838. Such usage makes it difficult to trace the details of the unfolding of church governance and doctrine in the faith’s dynamic early years.
The timeline below outlines relevant events and revelations surrounding the restoration of the priesthood. In hopes of avoiding anachronisms, it lists documents and events in the order that they appear in the historical record, rather than in the order of the modern restoration narrative.
CHRONOLOGY OF KEY EVENTS
The priesthood restoration was incremental and its true history contains significant challenges. This timeline shows the evolution of a number of ideas surrounding authority and priesthood.
|1827-1829||Alexander Crawford, a Scottish minister in Canada, teaches the existence of three priesthoods: a patriarchal priesthood after the “order of Melchisedec”, an “Aaronical” priesthood, and a priesthood held by Jesus Christ. The Disciples of Christ, a group committed to restoring primitive Christianity, is influenced by Crawford’s teachings in creating its own priesthood doctrine.3 The Disciples of Christ are also known as “Campbellites”.4
Sidney Rigdon, a Campbellite minister, has great success building up his congregation in Mentor, Ohio and nearby towns, including Kirtland.5
|May 15, 1829||John Baptist visits|
|Mar 26, 1830||The Book of Mormon is published. It sometimes uses the term “high priest” to describe the top religious official in a region, but other times refers to groups of “high priests” together.6 It uses the word “priesthood” in two chapters (Alma 4 and Alma 13), always referring to it as the “high priesthood”, and sometimes expanding it with variations of “high priesthood according to the holy order of God”.7 Alma 13 describes Melchizedek as a high priest but does not identify an order of the priesthood as bearing his name.8 The book describes a number of people baptizing, leading churches, serving missions, or speaking for God with no record of them receiving power or authority to do so from a priesthood holder. These include Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Samuel the Lamanite, and others.
In 3 Nephi, Jesus gives power to Nephite disciples that he visits after his resurrection, but he does not use the word “priesthood”. He gives one prophet “power that ye shall baptize this people” by verbal decree, without laying on of hands.9 A later group of Nephite disciples is given “power to give the Holy Ghost” by Jesus after they are “touched with his hand.”10
Near the end of the book, Moroni speaks of elders ordaining teachers and priests by the laying on of hands.11 The Book of Mormon makes no mention of a lower priesthood associated with Aaron.
|Apr 1830||The Church of Christ is founded by Joseph Smith. Joseph dictates a revelation titled The Articles and Covenants of the church of Christ, which lays out the offices of elder, priest, teacher, and deacon.12 The revelation does not use the words “priesthood”, “Melchizedek”, or “Aaronic”, or distinguish between a higher and lower order. This revelation would become chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments (BoC) and eventually section 20 of today’s Doctrine and Covenants (D&C).
At the founding meeting, Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith ordain each other as elders “unto this church of Christ”, with no reference to an order of priesthood.13
|Aug 1830||The Church claims D&C 27 was received this month.|
|Oct 1830||Parley P. Pratt shares the Book of Mormon with Sidney Rigdon, who then joins the church along with his formerly Campbellite congregation. Over the next several months, Sidney’s preaching leads to the conversion of over a thousand people in the Kirtland area.14|
|Feb 1831||Joseph and Emma move to Kirtland, Ohio.15|
|June 3, 1831||At a conference of church leaders in Kirtland, Joseph is ordained to the “high priesthood” by Lyman Wight. “The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.” (History of the Church, 1:175-76) .Over 20 other men are also ordained, most by Lyman but a few by Joseph. This is the earliest occurrence of the word “priesthood” in modern Mormon teachings or revelations.16 Joseph Smith’s own history, written years later, claims this as the first time. B.H.Roberts, as church historian, recognized the problem and inserted footnote denying the text.
Note that the conference included evil spirits which threw one from his seat to the floor, bound another, inability to use limbs or speak.
|Nov 1831||Joseph receives a revelation stating that those holding each office (elder, priest, teacher, deacon) should be organized in groups with those of the same office, and presided over by someone of that same office. It also lays out a progression between offices from deacon to teacher to priest to elder and finally to “the high Priesthood”. The word “priesthood” is used only in reference to this top office, and not in reference to the lower ones.17 The progression of offices in this revelation reiterates the progression instituted at a meeting a month earlier.18
This revelation would later become a portion of section 107 of today’s Doctrine and Covenants.
|Feb 1832||Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon together receive a vision (now D&C 76) in which those who “come forth in the resurection of the just” are described as “priests of the most high after the order of Melchesadeck which was after the order of Enoch which was after the order of of the only begotten son”.19|
|June 1832||The Evening and Morning Star, the Church’s first periodical, which often introduces revelations to members, yet no mention of the first vision or Peter, James, John.|
|Summer 1832||In the preface to an unfinished history, Joseph refers to “reception of the holy priesthood by the ministering of Angels to administer the letter of the Gospel the Law and commandments as they were given unto him and the ordinances, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinance from on high to preach the gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God conferred upon him…” (This is the same document that contains the 1832 First Vision account.)20|
|Sep 1832||Over the course of two days, Joseph dictates a revelation (D&C 84) that teaches in detail about two orders of priesthood: a “Holy Priesthood” that the revelation repeatedly associates with Moses, and a “lesser priesthood” that the revelation associates with Aaron. The line of Moses’s ordination is traced back to a previously-unknown “Esaius”, who received it directly from God, and is said to have lived at the same time as Abraham. Abraham’s priesthood line is also traced back through Melchizedek, Noah, Enoch, Abel, and Adam.21
This revelation also introduces specific links between church offices and the two priesthoods. “[T]he offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood”, says the revelation, and “the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood”.
|1833||Book of Commandments published by W.W. Phelps, predecessor to D&C, Verse 28 is very important – ZERO mention of Peter, James, John.|
|1833||Joseph Knight writes history of important events in Mormonism up to that year – no mention of either John Baptist or Peter, James, John.|
|Nov 15, 1833||Mormonism Unvailed printed – first significant anti-Mormon book – No mention of First Vision, Peter, James, John.|
|Feb 1834||At a council in Kirtland, Joseph says “I remarked, that I should endeavor to set before the council the dignity of the office which had been conferred on me by the ministering of the angel of God, by his own voice, and by the voice of this church”.22
Oliver’s account was “the first time Mormons learned that a heavenly conferral of authority occurred before the church’s organization.”
|1834||Oliver Cowdery writes Full History of the Rise of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Such a comprehensive history of the early years should surely contain the details of multiple miraculous events, yet we find only the ecstatic account of ordination by an unidentified angel. If Joseph and Oliver then knew him to be John the Baptist they did not reveal it. There is no mention of two priesthoods, Aaronic or Melchizedek, lesser or higher, no promise of the Holy Ghost, no visit of Peter, James, and John (which in 1834 should have been a matter of historical record for five years), no mention of the baptism and ordination of each other, and finally, a different wording of the angelic conferment.|
|Apr 1834||The minutes of another Kirtland council meeting include: “Bro Joseph Smith Jr. … then gave a relation of obtaining and translating the Book of Mormon, the revelation of the priesthood of Aaron, the organization of the Church in the year 1830, the revelation of the high priesthood and the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out upon the church…”23|
|Oct 1834||Oliver Cowdery publishes an account of angelic ordination in the Messenger and Advocate. The angel’s language is very similar to that which would appear later in Joseph’s 1839 history, but the angel is not identified as John the Baptist, and the angel refers to “this priesthood” rather than the “priesthood of Aaron”. There is no mention of a second ordination by Peter, James, and John.24|
|Aug 17, 1835||Updated and heavily revised Doctrine & Covenants presented at conference, containing numerous unannounced changes and expansions to previously published revelations. PETER, JAMES, JOHN retroactively inserted into D&C 27 – FIRST TIME ANYBODY HEARS OF PRIESTHOOD RESTORATION.
To the existing revelation on church offices (BoC 24, today’s D&C 20) is added a reference to the “high priesthood” and the offices of traveling bishop, high councilor, and high priest.
The revelation on sacramental wine (BoC 28, today’s D&C 27) is more than doubled in size, adding the names of several scriptural prophets who will participate in a special sacrament ceremony at Jesus’s second coming. After mentioning John the Baptist the additional verses say “Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;” and later in the same section “And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them”.25
This 1835 change to an 1830 revelation is the earliest mention of being ordained by resurrected biblical figures.
|1835||Oliver Cowdery said, “[Smith] was ordained by the angel John, unto the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, in company with myself… After this we received the high and holy priesthood …” (Early Mormon Documents 2:452-453).|
|1839||Joseph records a new history of the founding events of the church, which we have today as Joseph Smith History. This includes the account of John the Baptist ordaining Joseph and Oliver to the “priesthood of Aaron”, and relates John saying 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.”
This is the first account giving a date for the Aaronic priesthood restoration (May 15, 1829).26
Joseph explained the absence of earlier accounts of this event by saying “we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of having received the Priesthood and our having been baptized, owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood.”
The history goes on to describe Joseph and Oliver ordaining each other to be elders, but does not provide an account or a date for ordination by Peter, James, and John.27
|1842||In an epistle to the church, Joseph recounts hearing “The voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness between Harmony, Susquehanna county, and Colesville, Broome county, on the Susquehanna river, declaring themselves as possessing the keys of the kingdom, and of the dispensation of the fullness of times!” This letter comprises section 128 of today’s Doctrine and Covenants.28 It limits the possible locations of the Melchizedek priesthood ordination to an approximately 50 mile stretch of river between Colesville and Harmony. (The entire distance is more like 350 miles, but most of it does not run along the Susquehanna river).|
|1876||The words of John the Baptist from the 1839 priesthood restoration account are added to the Doctrine and Covenants as section 13.|
|1885||In an interview, David Whitmer says the following:
“I never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic priesthood until the year 1834[,] 5, or 6 – in Ohio, my information from Joseph and Oliver upon this matter being as I have stated, and that they were commanded so to do by revealment through Joseph. I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver as stated and believed by some. I regard that as an error, a misconception…”29
|1887||David Whitmer publishes An Address to All Believers in Christ. It reaffirms his testimony of seeing the gold plates, but also says this about the priesthood:
“This matter of ‘priesthood,’ since the days of Sydney Rigdon, has been the great hobby and stumbling-block of the Latter Day Saints. Priesthood means authority; and authority is the word we should use. I do not think the word priesthood is mentioned in the New Covenant of the Book of Mormon. Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church — until Sydney Rigdon’s days in Ohio. This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. He explained these things to Brother Joseph in his way, out of the old Scriptures, and got Brother Joseph to inquire, etc. He would inquire, and as mouth-piece speak out the revelations Just as they had it fixed up in their hearts.”30
Whitmer also describes some church members being troubled and leaving the church over changes made to the revelations when the Doctrine and Covenants was published: “When it became generally known that these important changes had been made in the Doctrine and Covenants, many of the brethren objected seriously to it, but they did not want to say much for the sake of peace, as it was Brother Joseph and the leaders who did it.”31 (Emphasis in original.)
- Thoughtful Sunday School, Lesson 8, Restoration of the Priesthood
RETURN OF ELIJAH
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that Elias and Elijah appeared to them in the Kirtland temple on April 3, 1836. (D&C 110) There are two significant problems with this narrative.
First, Smith apparently remained unaware that these seemingly different Biblical figures are in fact the same person; Elias is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew Elijah. He describes both figures as fulfilling Malachi’s prophesy regarding the return of the prophet Elijah. Thus, the two beings described separately by Smith in the context of Malachi’s prophesy would be the same person.
Apologist attempts to reconcile the dilemma most often revolve around the notion that the name “Elias” has been applied to other men besides Elijah, such as Noah, John the Baptist and others. Or perhaps Smith’s Elias was merely a preparatory messenger who goes before one greater than himself. Such arguments rely upon incorrect Biblical and linguistic context, while avoiding the fact that Smith also clearly refers to two distinct Elias and Elijah prophets in D&C 27:6-9.
Richard Packham provides a thorough examination of the issue, suggesting “Now, which explanation makes more sense and is more likely the case? …Elias is a hitherto unknown prophet of Abraham’s time, with a Greek name, or maybe Abraham himself, or Melchizedek, or Gabriel – who is also Noah – and Christ, and Elijah, and John the Baptist, and John the Revelator, and a ‘spirit or doctrine’? Or the more obvious conclusion that Joseph Smith was simply ignorant of the fact that the King James New Testament uses the Greek version of Old Testament names?” Thus, Smith’s repeated introduction of an unknown prophet in Abraham’s time is more problematic than most realize.
The second problem with Smith’s Elijah narrative stems from a lacking doctrinal need for additional binding powers. Malachi 4:5-6 is interpreted by the LDS Church as the restoration of the sealing powers which enables families to be sealed together. Yet Malachi’s prophecy as it appears in the Old Testament gives no indication that Elijah would restore priesthood keys or reveal sealing ordinances either for the living or the dead.
The New Testament interprets Elijah’s coming as having been fulfilled in John the Baptist. There is no mention of John exercising what Mormons understand as sealing powers, but then according to LDS doctrine, he would have been unable to because he held only the Aaronic Priesthood. The view of a future coming of Elijah was refuted by traditional Christian theologians, who pointed to Christ’s own assertion that John the Baptist was Elias.
Why Elijah’s authority would have been needed to make any ordinance binding is unclear, since Peter, James and John restored “the keys of the kingdom, which included the authority to “bind on earth” and “in heaven.” (Matt 16:9) Significantly, in all versions of Malachi’s prophecy revealed to Joseph Smith prior to 1838, there is no change in the wording from the King James Bible, nor is there any indication that Elijah would restore any sealing authority. This includes passages in the Book of Mormon, the D&C and even JST Malachi 4:4-5. (This is My Doctrine, p. 74-76)
- MormonThink: Elias and Elijah appearing at the temple
THE HEALING TEST
While not entirely unique to Mormonism, the Church promote a ritualized authority to call upon God’s healing power, via the Priesthood. Despite the potential to alleviate vast human suffering while reaping trillions of dollars of economic benefit, ample evidence indicates that God is not altering LDS health outcomes.
Ponder for a moment the real world health outcomes of the Utah healthcare service providers where significant blessings have been occurring for generations. The U.S. Government, for-profit insurance companies and private providers each carefully measure healthcare outcomes, which are compared to regional and national averages. None of Utah’s largest providers – Primary Children’s Hospital, LDS Hospital, Utah Valley Regional Medical Center and others, demonstrate superior outcomes.
Joseph Smith appears to have quickly learned from his brief and unsuccessful attempt at faith healing, when Zion’s Camp was plagued by cholera and 68 men fell ill, 14 of which died. Joseph attempted the sacred ritual of laying on of hands, ‘But I quickly learned by painful experience, that when Jehovah decrees destruction upon any people, and makes known his determination, man must not attempt to stay His hand. The moment I attempted to rebuke the disease I was attacked, and had I not desisted in my attempt to save the life of a brother, I would have sacrificed my own.” (Joseph Smith, History of Joseph Smith, June 24, 1834)
Arguably the strongest evidence against faith healing’s veracity is provided by the Church itself. If it could demonstrate the slightest outcome whatsoever, we’d never hear the end of it; it would be spoken of in Conference as forcefully as Elder Holland’s Book of Mormon defense. Facebook would crash under the load of faithful postings. Alternatively, one might argue that faith healing does in fact work, but God is making the non-believers sicker to achieve the average outcomes we observe.
- Medicare.gov: Hospital Compare
- NY Times, Medical Study Questions Power of Prayer
- Does Prayer Affect Healing?
- Radio Free Mormon: Episode 037 – General Conference Death March
Q: Can we accept that Joseph remembered the exact date he discovered Zelph, while forgetting the date and location of Peter, James, John’s personal visit to him and Oliver? Why was Oliver also unable to recall the date or location?
Q: In context of the numerous critical Church developments and early missionary efforts, is it reasonable to believe that neither Joseph or Oliver told anybody of Peter, James and John’s visitation for a full 5 years?
Q: Is it at all possible that Joseph, Oliver and the Church cannot assign a date or location because they fear being proven wrong?
Q: Why would an event as miraculous as the restoration of God’s authority be retroactively inserted into a previously minor revelation about what to drink during the sacrament?
Q: Is there any refuting that key priesthood and authority scriptures were doctored years after the fact?
Q: Can we agree that numerous documented alterations must be accepted as valid in order to claim Joseph possessed authority to restore the Church?
Q: What are we to make of the fact that D&C 27 is the only text we have which mentions the restoration?
Q: What are we to make of Richard Bushman’s comment that, “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication?”
Q: What does the ample supply of healthcare data suggest about the efficacy of priesthood healing?
Q: Do you believe that God will heal because someone pours olive oil on a persons head while invoking an authority which seems questionable at best?
- Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt. 1 Dan Vogel
- Evolution of Mormon Authority Claims Pt. 2 Dan Vogel
- 1833 Book of Commandments
- 1835 Doctrine & Covenants
- Side by side comparisons of Book of Commandments 28 vs. D&C 27
- Restoration of The Priesthood: LDS official version
- Power From on High, Greg Prince
- MormonThink: The Priesthood
- Priesthood Restored or Retrofitted?
- Priesthood Restoration
- ABC’s of Mormonism
- Reddit – Detailed Priesthood History Explained
- A Study of the Nature of and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants, Melvin J. Petersen
Links to Rough Stone Rolling references:
- Pages 157-59 discuss how Joseph Smith was ordained to the high priesthood (Melchizedek Priesthood) for the “first time” one to two years AFTER Peter, James, and John were said to have bestowed the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph and Oliver.
- Page 75 summarizes how “The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.”