Comments on: Dating the Melchizedek Priesthood Restoration

By: Chris n.

Chris n. — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:24:05 +0000

Please note also when a Apostle is ordained today they first ordained an Apostle then they are set-apart to the member of the twelve and given the keys, here July 1830 is when the keys were given, because section 20 they weren’t given yet. Then much later First Presidency was organized and later the Quorum of the Twelve was then organized 1835, Feb 14

By: Chris n.

Chris n. — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:54:16 +0000

here
copy: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4fba615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
However, in relation to the fleeing from enemies, Elder Erastus Snow gave a similar account as he addressed a Logan, Utah, conference in 1882:

“In the due course of time, as we read in the history which he [Joseph] has left, Peter, James and John appeared to him—it was at a period when they were being pursued by their enemies and they had to travel all night, and in the dawn of the coming day when they were weary and worn, who should appear to them but Peter, James and John, for the purpose of conferring upon them the Apostleship, the keys of which they themselves had held while upon the earth, which had been bestowed upon them by the Savior. This Priesthood conferred upon them by those three messengers embraces within it all offices of the Priesthood from the highest to the lowest.” (Journal of Discourses, 23:183.

By: Chris n.

Chris n. — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:39:27 +0000

I was under the understanding that the second on July 1830 was when was ordained to an apostle not when he received the Melchizedek Priesthood see here

“Joseph & oliver went into the woods in a few rods, it being night, and they traveled until Oliver was exhausted & Joseph almost Carried him through mud and water. They traveled all night and just at the break of day Olive[r] gave out entirely and exclaimed O! Lord! How long Brother Joseph have we got to endure this thing; Brother Joseph said that at that very time Peter James & John came to them and Ordained them to the Apostleship.”
So I typed this just as it did in the Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling in page 118(except for the bold) . Now notice it said Apostleship not Elder or Melchizedek Priesthood, they are different events which Peter, James and John appeared to them and ordained them and later ordained them to an Apostle. These are my thoughts on this topic. please don’t delete this.

By: David G.

David G. — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:24:38 +0000

I think the Peter, James, and John visitation presents significant challenges. Not only are we faced with late source material, that material is couched in language and concepts that were (apparently) foreign to 1829-1830 contexts. And, as I indicated in my post today, we’ve had the tendency of reading those later statements through post-1835 definitions of priesthood. I think we need more work on the discursive contexts from which the accounts of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John emerged, and how these accounts negotiated prior frameworks, such as those found in D&C 20 (1830), the June 3-6, 1831 and October 25, 1831 conferences, the November 11, 1831 revelation, D&C 84 (1832), and the 1835 portions of D&C 107. This type of analysis would perhaps benefit from a memory studies approach, as we’d be asking how the Baptist and Peter, James, and John fit into the narratives being shared by JS and OC after 1834.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 22:38:36 +0000

Right, I’m just saying it is important even if the particular date isn’t that important. On the other hand I don’t buy the theological (rather than historical) argument that the MP was necessary to organize the Church. (Which just never made much sense to me) I’m more just saying that whatever the historical answers turn out to be they have big theological implications. (IMO)

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:47:50 +0000

Clark: I don’t think any of us here are saying there wasn’t an actual event of physical ordination. We are just saying it isn’t important to locate when the actual event occurred–any of the options presented above would work fine with our objective structures. In lieu of a definitive date, however, we can only focus on what we can reconstruct: the development of their understanding of this priesthood.

If we had more historical evidence, things would be different.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:25:46 +0000

J, that’s true, but I think the concern from a modern perspective is the idea that these aren’t purely evolving ideas but reflect and objective structures. If so, then wouldn’t there have to be a Melchizedek Priesthood to be restored? If there isn’t and it’s all evolutionary then that has significant theological implications.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:53:07 +0000

Ben that is a good point. What would a restoration of the “Melchizedek Priesthood” have even meant in 1830?

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:26:42 +0000

John: It’s a good question, though I think the rest of the problems I lay out against Theory I still holds claim. I haven’t thought of this issue since 2008, but off the top of my head I still find difficulty correlating a late May date with 1) Joseph Smith’s statement that it took place on the Susquehanna river, and B) Addison Everett’s account that it correlated with the court case in Colesville. (Though, as I outlined in the post, I see Everett’s account as highly problematic. But it should be neither of the events that Everett mentioned–the translation of the Book of Mormon, and the Colesville trial–would work with late May, as the BoM translation finished in mid-May.)

That said, I still hold that both theories have serious problems. If there is a definitive argument out there–and I hope there eventually will be–I haven’t seen it yet. Further, since this was such a dynamic process of understanding the priesthood, as David’s post today persuasively shows, I really don’t think a precise date matters.

By: john f.

john f. — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 17:04:57 +0000

Ben, given the clarification of the dates for Theory I (in the 13 days between May 16 and May 28), what specifically weighs against this dating for the visitation of Peter, James and John?

(I’m picking this up after linking here from David’s post today.)