Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Kishkumen »

To kick things off in the Celestial Forum, I wanted to post about something that has recently become increasingly clear to me. The popular historical question of the restoration of the priesthood proceeds from an inaccurate understanding of the origins of priesthood in the Mormon movement. Historians focus on the historicity of a visit from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John, but the origins of Mormon priesthood are much more straightforward and uncomplicated than that, and the answer is right under everyone's nose.

Mike Quinn (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 32-33) wrote about it years ago, in fact:
Smith inherited lineal priesthood without ordination. A revelation stated this in December 1832: "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." (D&C 86:8-9). In 1847 Brigham Young preached: "Joseph Smith was entitled to the Keys of the Priesthood according to Blood. Still He was the fourth son." Decades later, Apostle Franklin D. Richards published that "Joseph Smith, Sen., inherited the Patriarchal Priesthood, by right from the fathers over the house of Israel in this dispensation. However, early Mormon doctrine was not simply that Smith inherited the "right" to the priesthood, but that he actually possessed the priesthood at birth. For example, in January 1845 Young blessed a newborn "son of Promise . . . on whoom [sic] the Preasthood [sic] shall rest from his birth to all Eternity even so Amen."

Joseph Smith, Jr., was the fourth-born son in his family, and the third to survive. Like Lehi's fourth son Nephi in the Book of Mormon (1 Ne. 2:5), Smith was the "son of promise." For the Smith family, literal ordination to the office of patriarch was merely a formality of church consistency of those who were lineal heirs of Patriarchal priesthood.
The visits of various figures after that would then be related to the conferral of specific keys, but priesthood was something Joseph believed he already possessed because he had inherited it from his father. Once one understands Mormon priesthood in this light, then many other apparent problems and mysteries come into clearer view. Of course, this is why the Presiding Patriarch was such an important figure. Of course, the Smith family believed that the leader of the Church needed to be a son of Joseph Smith, Jr. Of course, the Smiths continued to hold the office of Patriarch until Eldred G. Smith.

Of course, polygamy was intended to attach other families in the Church to the one family that truly had the priesthood by right through the sealing power that came with the patriarchal priesthood. That's right: the sealing power was believed to accompany the patriarchal priesthood.

Suddenly Abraham chapter 1's description of Abraham and his priesthood makes a whole lot more sense. In it, Joseph Smith reveals a lot about his priesthood and its origins that he did not spell out explicitly in any other place.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Ramus_Stein
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm
Location: Junction, Utah
Contact:

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Ramus_Stein »

It is good to see someone do something new with this problem. I guess new is not exactly right since Michael Quinn already pointed this out, but it is a conversation I don't see a lot online anyway. You are right that people usually worry about Peter, James, and John. I suppose I am no different. There are so many things about Mormonism that modern Mormons take for granted which are not accurate. People really argue about the wrong things, and the LDS Church is filled with tons of historical misconceptions.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Shulem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:11 pm
Suddenly Abraham chapter 1's description of Abraham and his priesthood makes a whole lot more sense. In it, Joseph Smith reveals a lot about his priesthood and its origins that he did not spell out explicitly in any other place.

Indeed, Smith's royal priesthood comes from lineage or the seed of the body wherein Smith said through Abraham: "I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same".
Smith via Abraham wrote:and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.
Smith via Abraham wrote:It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time
Smith via Abraham wrote:I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed
Joseph Smith ascribed to the biblical practice of racism in the priesthood such as the Levites and Aaron. By the seed of the body was the rights to the priesthood administered. There was also priesthood that was after another order, without father, without mother, without descent but given directly from God himself -- but you can bet that even those had to have the right lineage! Priesthood in the Bible and in Smith's Mormonism was always racial and given to the special select who happened to have the right roots.

Also recall that according to Smith through Abraham, the first Egyptians were not included when it came to having rights to the priesthood: "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood". Hence, the priesthood in biblical times was racial and that is just the sort of things that caught Smith's attention and he fully adopted it.
User avatar
Ramus_Stein
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm
Location: Junction, Utah
Contact:

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Ramus_Stein »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:37 pm
Joseph Smith ascribed to the biblical practice of racism in the priesthood such as the Levites and Aaron. By the seed of the body was the rights to the priesthood administered. There was also priesthood that was after another order, without father, without mother, without descent but given directly from God himself -- but you can bet that even those had to have the right lineage! Priesthood in the Bible and in Smith's Mormonism was always racial and given to the special select who happened to have the right roots.

Also recall that according to Smith through Abraham, the first Egyptians were not included when it came to having rights to the priesthood: "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood". Hence, the priesthood in biblical times was racial and that is just the sort of things that caught Smith's attention and he fully adopted it.
I don't think the people who wrote the books of the Bible were racist in the way you are claiming. Race theory was not yet invented. Other than that, what you have to say on the priesthood here is very interesting. What is the relationship between the two priesthoods? I am not talking about Aaronic and Melchizedek but the one by lineal descent and the one without descent? Usually Mormon writers write about the second one and don't say much about the first. Even Mormon scholars at BYU you think would know about priesthood by descent say almost nothing to help a person understand the patriarchal priesthood.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Res Ipsa »

Ramus_Stein wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:55 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:37 pm
Joseph Smith ascribed to the biblical practice of racism in the priesthood such as the Levites and Aaron. By the seed of the body was the rights to the priesthood administered. There was also priesthood that was after another order, without father, without mother, without descent but given directly from God himself -- but you can bet that even those had to have the right lineage! Priesthood in the Bible and in Smith's Mormonism was always racial and given to the special select who happened to have the right roots.

Also recall that according to Smith through Abraham, the first Egyptians were not included when it came to having rights to the priesthood: "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood". Hence, the priesthood in biblical times was racial and that is just the sort of things that caught Smith's attention and he fully adopted it.
I don't think the people who wrote the books of the Bible were racist in the way you are claiming. Race theory was not yet invented. Other than that, what you have to say on the priesthood here is very interesting. What is the relationship between the two priesthoods? I am not talking about Aaronic and Melchizedek but the one by lineal descent and the one without descent? Usually Mormon writers write about the second one and don't say much about the first. Even Mormon scholars at BYU you think would know about priesthood by descent say almost nothing to help a person understand the patriarchal priesthood.
Hello Ramus,

Your opening sentences strike me as odd. Must something have a theory before it exists?
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Shulem »

Ramus_Stein wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:55 pm
I don't think the people who wrote the books of the Bible were racist in the way you are claiming. Race theory was not yet invented. Other than that, what you have to say on the priesthood here is very interesting. What is the relationship between the two priesthoods? I am not talking about Aaronic and Melchizedek but the one by lineal descent and the one without descent? Usually Mormon writers write about the second one and don't say much about the first. Even Mormon scholars at BYU you think would know about priesthood by descent say almost nothing to help a person understand the patriarchal priesthood.
Oh but race theory was totally practiced by the Israelites as shown time and time again in the Bible. The priesthood and Jehovah's religion which mainly consisted of animal sacrifices was specially selected to the chosen race, the House of Israel through Levi's priestly administration -- and remember that Moses said nothing about priesthood through the Jews -- the Levi usurpers. The Levitical law of priesthood ordination and rites was strictly practiced through that lineal race and continued through Aaron. But then we see Christ coming along who took the whole big bang for himself to get the High Priesthood without father or mother but through the heavens being ordained by divine principle and not of earth. Hence Christianity is born through the house of Judah and so-called literary prophecies of such are interpreted however best fits the new scenario. Hence, the king of the Jews and the great High Priest. Christ took over the kingdom and his followers shaped a whole new religion dumping animal sacrifice in favor of human sacrifice.

And here we are today, Christianity is still alive and kicking -- hard to believe.
User avatar
Ramus_Stein
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm
Location: Junction, Utah
Contact:

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Ramus_Stein »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:18 pm
Hello Ramus,

Your opening sentences strike me as odd. Must something have a theory before it exists?
That is an interesting question. I would say yes in this case because the thing we are talking about is a mental construct. Race does not exist without the invention of the concept of race. If it did exist independent of the concept, that would validate the concept as something that describes reality plain and simple. Since I do not believe in race as anything more than a bad idea, then racism can't exist until that bad idea is born. I think people have hated and feared those who were different from time immemorial, but that is not exactly racism. Words that work better might be ethnocentrism or xenophobia. I don't approve of those things either, but they are not exactly the same as racism.
User avatar
Ramus_Stein
Sunbeam
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:09 pm
Location: Junction, Utah
Contact:

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Ramus_Stein »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:36 pm
Oh but race theory was totally practiced by the Israelites as shown time and time again in the Bible. The priesthood and Jehovah's religion which mainly consisted of animal sacrifices was specially selected to the chosen race, the House of Israel through Levi's priestly administration -- and remember that Moses said nothing about priesthood through the Jews -- the Levi usurpers. The Levitical law of priesthood ordination and rites was strictly practiced through that lineal race and continued through Aaron. But then we see Christ coming along who took the whole big bang for himself to get the High Priesthood without father or mother but through the heavens being ordained by divine principle and not of earth. Hence Christianity is born through the house of Judah and so-called literary prophecies of such are interpreted however best fits the new scenario. Hence, the king of the Jews and the great High Priest. Christ took over the kingdom and his followers shaped a whole new religion dumping animal sacrifice in favor of human sacrifice.

And here we are today, Christianity is still alive and kicking -- hard to believe.
I don't agree. I know it is not a scholar's tool exactly, but I will use Wikipedia-
The modern concept of race emerged as a product of the colonial enterprises of European powers from the 16th to 18th centuries which identified race in terms of skin color and physical differences.
I agree that the Bible started to be read according to these later ideas, but it would be impossible for the writers of the Bible to teach these ideas centuries before they were invented by European colonial powers.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Kishkumen »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 4:37 pm
Also recall that according to Smith through Abraham, the first Egyptians were not included when it came to having rights to the priesthood: "Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood". Hence, the priesthood in biblical times was racial and that is just the sort of things that caught Smith's attention and he fully adopted it.
Good point, Shulem. How is it that Abraham had the priesthood and knew all of its mysteries while the Pharaoh, a figure associated with all kinds of magic and mystical symbolism, did not. Joseph Smith provides his own answer, and it looks like it has racial implications too. And yet, if it is as someone like Brigham Young assumed, then why is it that Joseph Smith ordained Black men to the priesthood? Why did it take Brigham Young to close off the access of Black men to the blessings of the priesthood? It is an interesting question.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Joseph Smith's Inherited Priesthood

Post by Res Ipsa »

Ramus_Stein wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:42 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:18 pm
Hello Ramus,

Your opening sentences strike me as odd. Must something have a theory before it exists?
That is an interesting question. I would say yes in this case because the thing we are talking about is a mental construct. Race does not exist without the invention of the concept of race. If it did exist independent of the concept, that would validate the concept as something that describes reality plain and simple. Since I do not believe in race as anything more than a bad idea, then racism can't exist until that bad idea is born. I think people have hated and feared those who were different from time immemorial, but that is not exactly racism. Words that work better might be ethnocentrism or xenophobia. I don't approve of those things either, but they are not exactly the same as racism.
Fair enough. I would go farther and say that all categories are mental constructs. Despite that, we talk about the labels we create for our created categories and both talk about and act upon them as if they were real. I see race as no different. To the extent race consists of human created categories based on epigenetic differences triggered by the environmental conditions in which people lived, did the authors of the Bible not observe those differences and view them with some significance? Replacing the constructed category of "race" with the constructed category of "ethnicity" looks to me like a distinction without a difference.

Anyway, thanks for unpacking that. Carry on.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply