Spy Ring
“On 19 April 1966 Ernest Wilkinson [BYU president] asked his administrative assistant to organize a group of ‘conservative’ students to ‘monitor’ professors who were regarded as Communist sympathizers. Nearly all of these professors had publicly condemned the John Birch Society. Among them was political scientist Louis Midgley whose anti-Birch article in the Daily Universe had resulted in a muzzling of the newspaper two years earlier.... For a year Stephen Hays Russell, student-leader of this ‘spy ring,’ had already been reporting to the local Birch Society chapter and to Wilkinson about some of these professors.
“On 20 April Russell organized ten to fifteen other Birch students in a room of BYU’s Wilkinson Center. A non-student chapter leader of the society acted as guard. This room was the regular meeting place for BYU’s Young Americans for Freedom, and each prospective spy was invited to this ‘special YAF meeting, to be held at the regular place, 370 ELWC. These students included the president of BYU’s Young Americans for Freedom and Cleon Skousen’s [author of The Naked Communist] nephew Mark.... What linked these students was their participation in the Provo chapter of the Birch Society and the BYU chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.”
- see D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, p. 93 (Emphasis added)
Building the FARMS Ziggurat
-
_Ray A
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Here's something I found (I didn't find anything using a search on this board):
-
_rcrocket
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Quinn got a lot wrong. I have interviewed three of the expelled professors. One later became a General Authority. One was a client of mine. One was a professor of mine. The future general authority alone refused to be reinstated when my grandfather intervened with Pres. McKay and got their jobs back. As I went through BYU, many of the older professors recognized my name and expressed their thoughts on the subject.
More here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... 6829&REC=1
The last time we covered this subject, Scratch called me a liar and accused me of making this stuff up. [He had never heard of the "Spy Ring" incident and thought the term applied to recent monitoring of homosexuals. Now, there's naïvété.]
More here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... 6829&REC=1
The last time we covered this subject, Scratch called me a liar and accused me of making this stuff up. [He had never heard of the "Spy Ring" incident and thought the term applied to recent monitoring of homosexuals. Now, there's naïvété.]
-
_cinepro
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4502
- Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
rcrocket wrote:The last time we covered this subject, Scratch called me a liar and accused me of making this stuff up. [He had never heard of the "Spy Ring" incident and thought the term applied to recent monitoring of homosexuals. Now, there's naïveté.]
If I recall, the "spy ring" was discussed in Greg Prince's bio of David O' Mckay. Interesting story.
-
_Nightingale
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Scratch:
"Apart from the "need to be better known" and the "promot[ion] of publicity" mentioned by Noel Reynolds, what would have persuaded the Brethren to associate themselves with FARMS in this way? Clearly, there would have been a number of problems involved:[1]it would be a tacit acknowledgment of weaknesses in the Church; [2]it would also be a kind of "winking" support for the belligerent attitudes and methods of many apologists. The attempts by FARMS to maintain its independence are evident in the omnipresent disclaimer:
Quote:
The opinions expressed in the articles and books [FARMS] distributes are not necessarily the opinions of anyone except the authors."
[Emphasis 1 and 2 added]
Perhaps a definition is in order. I have mentioned this point before but here goes again. The first time I came face-to-face with "Christian apologetics" was when I listened to a debate between a Christian apologist who defended the doctrine of creation and an atheist scientist who explained the theory of evolution. The two men were friends and they conducted a friendly discussion. I expected nothing less as that was my experience with Christianity to date, that civility and friendship were paramount. The Christian debater had a widely known good reputation and enjoyed respect from all sides. I never had the idea that apologetics were a negative pursuit or that it had anything to do with apology which tends to suggest that one has been in the wrong and is seeking to make amends.
I went on to listen to many such discussions on different topics and have heard professors and pastors and other Christian leaders with professional training in these matters as well as many, many discussions between believers and non-believers. There was/is never any suggestion that I am aware of that apologetics as an endeavour is by definition a negative undertaking, much less a scurrilous one.
I have read some posts, here and elsewhere, that explain a person's negative attitude towards Mormon apologists - if they have had negative experiences in Mormonism and/or feel strongly that there are past or present practices that are questionable or worse, they take issue with people who defend Mormonism. I can understand that and even relate to it in some ways. Some have expressed that they cannot respect anyone who would defend what to them is indefensible. This makes sense, although those on different sides will see these things differently.
In light of the various definitions and usages of the term apologetics, though, I don't agree with Mr. Scratch's conclusion as expressed in #1 emphasis above. I don't think it is inherent that in having church apologists the leaders admit there are weaknesses in the church. Please see the Wiki excerpts below for more information on the definitions and usages of the term apologetics. This is the biggest reason for my disagreement with Scratch on this point. In short, I don't feel that engaging in apologetics is by definition a negative, scurrilous pursuit, although that is certainly one colloquial understanding and usage of the term, the one that many seem to use exclusively when it comes to Mormon apologists.
I am not necessarily objecting to that usage but just want to point out that that is not the only possible understanding and usage of the term. From this my point is that, according to definition, being a Mormon apologist does not automatically make one an evil, scheming, underhanded, malicious, lying, clueless, uneducated person, as some seem to insist. One may be so but it is not inherent in the term apologist. In my (EV) world, in my experience and observation, apologists are considered well educated, committed, active Christians who are informed, respected and well spoken - those who can "defend the faith", which is seen as a positive and admirable endeavour. (New Testament tells us to "give reason for the hope that is within you", which is used as a reason to engage in both evangelism and apologetics).
Definitions (I know I could just give the Wiki link but I wanted to emphasize the parts that underscore my points):
From Wikipedia:
Definition:
Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.
The term Apologist applies especially to early Christian writers (c 120-220) who took on the task of recommending their faith to outsiders.
Colloquial Usage:
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning.
Technical Usage:
The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In the Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defense.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's Letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (Philippians 1:7 & 16), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Romans 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητοι (anapologētoi) (without excuse, defense, or apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation.
The legal nuance of apologetics was reframed in a more specific sense to refer to the study of the defense of a doctrine or belief. In this context it most commonly refers to philosophical reconciliation. Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.
In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a plea for forgiveness for a wrong act. Implicit in this is an admission of guilt, thus turning on its head the "speaking in defense" aspect of the original concept. An uncommon secondary sense refers to a speech or writing that defends the speaker or author's position.
Christian Apologetics:
Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.[4] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defence of Christianity on favoring interpretations of historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines.
Mormon Apologetics:
Within Christian apologetics there are apologists who specialize in Mormonism, including several well-known Mormon apologetic Organizations, such as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (a group of scholars at Brigham Young University) and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (an independent, not-for-profit group), which have formed to defend the doctrines and history of the Latter Day Saint movement in general and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular).
(end of Wiki excerpts)
Re #2 emphasis above (Scratch quote): I don't see how your conclusion follows. The reasoning seems cloudy there. It's more like a wild surmise than a studied conclusion based on fact or even just common sense.
Scratch:
"Why did FARMS want so badly to remain independent?"
My first thought here was that it could be to be able to state accurately that the theories, opinion, conclusions of the various authors or the body itself (if any?) are a result of independent study, research, thought, not handed down from on high. If Mormon leaders were to hand FARMS its material on a plate, what would be the point of FARMS at all? All the desired facts and conclusions could just be written in church publications. That would save some millions right there.
I don't see anything sinister or strange at all in the members of an independent body seeking to retain their independence, for many reasons, and they would be especially vigilant about this aspect of any proposed merger to ensure they wouldn't end up in an undesirable situation they had not taken the time to foresee and prevent.
I'm not intending to support one side or the other here. Rather, with very limited information, I am just trying to look at the thing objectively.
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
1. Apologetics is not automatically a negative field.
2. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders fear there are weaknesses in their church.
3. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders "wink" at belligerence or other non-desirable apologetic approaches.
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
5. There could be something sinister in the mix here. I mean, that is always an (outside) possibility but I don't see it on Scratch's evidence so far. I don't think you can read absolute fact into any of the material presented so far except for what is undeniably actual fact (In other words, guessing at motives and other non-seen entities is a fast way to end up WRONG).
etc...
"Apart from the "need to be better known" and the "promot[ion] of publicity" mentioned by Noel Reynolds, what would have persuaded the Brethren to associate themselves with FARMS in this way? Clearly, there would have been a number of problems involved:[1]it would be a tacit acknowledgment of weaknesses in the Church; [2]it would also be a kind of "winking" support for the belligerent attitudes and methods of many apologists. The attempts by FARMS to maintain its independence are evident in the omnipresent disclaimer:
Quote:
The opinions expressed in the articles and books [FARMS] distributes are not necessarily the opinions of anyone except the authors."
[Emphasis 1 and 2 added]
Perhaps a definition is in order. I have mentioned this point before but here goes again. The first time I came face-to-face with "Christian apologetics" was when I listened to a debate between a Christian apologist who defended the doctrine of creation and an atheist scientist who explained the theory of evolution. The two men were friends and they conducted a friendly discussion. I expected nothing less as that was my experience with Christianity to date, that civility and friendship were paramount. The Christian debater had a widely known good reputation and enjoyed respect from all sides. I never had the idea that apologetics were a negative pursuit or that it had anything to do with apology which tends to suggest that one has been in the wrong and is seeking to make amends.
I went on to listen to many such discussions on different topics and have heard professors and pastors and other Christian leaders with professional training in these matters as well as many, many discussions between believers and non-believers. There was/is never any suggestion that I am aware of that apologetics as an endeavour is by definition a negative undertaking, much less a scurrilous one.
I have read some posts, here and elsewhere, that explain a person's negative attitude towards Mormon apologists - if they have had negative experiences in Mormonism and/or feel strongly that there are past or present practices that are questionable or worse, they take issue with people who defend Mormonism. I can understand that and even relate to it in some ways. Some have expressed that they cannot respect anyone who would defend what to them is indefensible. This makes sense, although those on different sides will see these things differently.
In light of the various definitions and usages of the term apologetics, though, I don't agree with Mr. Scratch's conclusion as expressed in #1 emphasis above. I don't think it is inherent that in having church apologists the leaders admit there are weaknesses in the church. Please see the Wiki excerpts below for more information on the definitions and usages of the term apologetics. This is the biggest reason for my disagreement with Scratch on this point. In short, I don't feel that engaging in apologetics is by definition a negative, scurrilous pursuit, although that is certainly one colloquial understanding and usage of the term, the one that many seem to use exclusively when it comes to Mormon apologists.
I am not necessarily objecting to that usage but just want to point out that that is not the only possible understanding and usage of the term. From this my point is that, according to definition, being a Mormon apologist does not automatically make one an evil, scheming, underhanded, malicious, lying, clueless, uneducated person, as some seem to insist. One may be so but it is not inherent in the term apologist. In my (EV) world, in my experience and observation, apologists are considered well educated, committed, active Christians who are informed, respected and well spoken - those who can "defend the faith", which is seen as a positive and admirable endeavour. (New Testament tells us to "give reason for the hope that is within you", which is used as a reason to engage in both evangelism and apologetics).
Definitions (I know I could just give the Wiki link but I wanted to emphasize the parts that underscore my points):
From Wikipedia:
Definition:
Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations. The term comes from the Greek word apologia (απολογία), meaning a speaking in defense.
The term Apologist applies especially to early Christian writers (c 120-220) who took on the task of recommending their faith to outsiders.
Colloquial Usage:
Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied in a general manner to include groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies, or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning.
Technical Usage:
The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word apologia. In the Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the kategoria (κατηγορία), and the defendant replied with an apologia. To deliver an apologia then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges, as in the case of Socrates' defense.
This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term apologia in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defense" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's Letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (Philippians 1:7 & 16), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith. The word also appears in the negative in Romans 1:20: unbelievers are αναπολόγητοι (anapologētoi) (without excuse, defense, or apology) for rejecting the revelation of God in creation.
The legal nuance of apologetics was reframed in a more specific sense to refer to the study of the defense of a doctrine or belief. In this context it most commonly refers to philosophical reconciliation. Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.
In the English language, the word apology is derived from the Greek word apologia, but its use has changed; its primary sense now refers to a plea for forgiveness for a wrong act. Implicit in this is an admission of guilt, thus turning on its head the "speaking in defense" aspect of the original concept. An uncommon secondary sense refers to a speech or writing that defends the speaker or author's position.
Christian Apologetics:
Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.[4] Christian apologetics have taken many forms over the centuries, starting with Paul of Tarsus, including writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and continuing currently with the modern Christian community, through the efforts of many authors in various Christian traditions such as C.S. Lewis. Apologists have based their defence of Christianity on favoring interpretations of historical evidence, philosophical arguments, scientific investigation, and other disciplines.
Mormon Apologetics:
Within Christian apologetics there are apologists who specialize in Mormonism, including several well-known Mormon apologetic Organizations, such as the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (a group of scholars at Brigham Young University) and Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (an independent, not-for-profit group), which have formed to defend the doctrines and history of the Latter Day Saint movement in general and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular).
(end of Wiki excerpts)
Re #2 emphasis above (Scratch quote): I don't see how your conclusion follows. The reasoning seems cloudy there. It's more like a wild surmise than a studied conclusion based on fact or even just common sense.
Scratch:
"Why did FARMS want so badly to remain independent?"
My first thought here was that it could be to be able to state accurately that the theories, opinion, conclusions of the various authors or the body itself (if any?) are a result of independent study, research, thought, not handed down from on high. If Mormon leaders were to hand FARMS its material on a plate, what would be the point of FARMS at all? All the desired facts and conclusions could just be written in church publications. That would save some millions right there.
I don't see anything sinister or strange at all in the members of an independent body seeking to retain their independence, for many reasons, and they would be especially vigilant about this aspect of any proposed merger to ensure they wouldn't end up in an undesirable situation they had not taken the time to foresee and prevent.
I'm not intending to support one side or the other here. Rather, with very limited information, I am just trying to look at the thing objectively.
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
1. Apologetics is not automatically a negative field.
2. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders fear there are weaknesses in their church.
3. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders "wink" at belligerence or other non-desirable apologetic approaches.
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
5. There could be something sinister in the mix here. I mean, that is always an (outside) possibility but I don't see it on Scratch's evidence so far. I don't think you can read absolute fact into any of the material presented so far except for what is undeniably actual fact (In other words, guessing at motives and other non-seen entities is a fast way to end up WRONG).
etc...
-
_Mister Scratch
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Nightingale wrote:Scratch:
"Apart from the "need to be better known" and the "promot[ion] of publicity" mentioned by Noel Reynolds, what would have persuaded the Brethren to associate themselves with FARMS in this way? Clearly, there would have been a number of problems involved:[1]it would be a tacit acknowledgment of weaknesses in the Church; [2]it would also be a kind of "winking" support for the belligerent attitudes and methods of many apologists. The attempts by FARMS to maintain its independence are evident in the omnipresent disclaimer:
Quote:
The opinions expressed in the articles and books [FARMS] distributes are not necessarily the opinions of anyone except the authors."
In light of the various definitions and usages of the term apologetics, though, I don't agree with Mr. Scratch's conclusion as expressed in #1 emphasis above. I don't think it is inherent that in having church apologists the leaders admit there are weaknesses in the church.
Hi there, Nightingale. I agree with you: there is nothing wrong--in an of itself--with being an apologist. Nor does having church apologists mean that there are "weaknesses" per se in said church. But, we are talking about the LDS Church here. Various officials have noted repeatedly that a key function of FARMS is to rescue those Saints with wavering testimonies, and this is done in part by concocting various theories about the most problematic facets of Mormonism: the Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon historicity, Lamanite DNA, and so forth. I think we need to bear in mind that the LDS Church has a long history of being very uncomfortable about its past, and the attempts on the part of Church leadership to hide or "squirrel away" uncomfortable tidbits has been pretty thoroughly documents.
And please note that I was careful to describe the Brethren's actions as a "tacit admission." Of course they would never come out and just admit the truth about this stuff.
This is the biggest reason for my disagreement with Scratch on this point. In short, I don't feel that engaging in apologetics is by definition a negative, scurrilous pursuit,
We don't disagree on this, Nightingale. A small portion of FARMS apologetics is well-meaning and done in a positive, Christian spirit. Far too much of it, though, is very negative. It is designed to destroy and attack rather than build up.
although that is certainly one colloquial understanding and usage of the term, the one that many seem to use exclusively when it comes to Mormon apologists.
Re #2 emphasis above (Scratch quote): I don't see how your conclusion follows. The reasoning seems cloudy there. It's more like a wild surmise than a studied conclusion based on fact or even just common sense.
Why do you say that? Presumably the Brethren were familiar enough with FARMS work to have seen the attack pieces written by DCP, John Tvedtnes, Bill Hamblin, Louis Midgley, and others, right? Or, are you suggesting that the GAs were "spoon fed" only those pieces which would paint the apologists in the best-possible light?
I don't see anything sinister or strange at all in the members of an independent body seeking to retain their independence, for many reasons, and they would be especially vigilant about this aspect of any proposed merger to ensure they wouldn't end up in an undesirable situation they had not taken the time to foresee and prevent.
Well, my suspicious is that they did indeed try to ward off the Brethren's (especially Merrill Bateman's) advances. They feared having to take orders from the men they supposedly serve.
3. Having an apologetic body within the church fold does not necessarily indicate that Mormon leaders "wink" at belligerence or other non-desirable apologetic approaches.
Actually, maybe you're right about this. DCP said that there was some "quip" made about the FARMS Review, so maybe they did express disapproval regarding the "non-desireable apologetic approaches"?
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
How long did it take you to construct the opening post? It seems like that took quite a while to amass all that information and interpretation.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
-
_ludwigm
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Nightingale wrote:...
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
...
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
...
etc...
The paragraph 4. accepted.
Then:
a.) It is the same
b.) It is better
c.) They can not be compared
d.) They could be compared but the church has no official definition
e.) Don't criticize apologists even the criticism is established
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
-
_Pokatator
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1417
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:38 pm
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Nightingale wrote:...
For those who hate long posts, the bottom line is:
...
4. Being an apologist is not, by definition, worse than mass murder.
...
etc...
I feel that this statement went over the top. Unnecessary comparison. No one has stated or implied this to the best of my knowledge.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace
bcspace
-
_Tom
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1023
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:45 pm
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Daniel Peterson wrote:beastie wrote:Was the only contested point who would have the ultimate control over that research?
I don't know precisely what the then-chairman of Ancient Scripture had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty over the Hebraists in Asian and Near Eastern Languages. The response (not only from me but from others, including his dean) was so immediately negative that we never got into the details.
I've emailed the then-chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture to determine what he had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty.
-
_harmony
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18195
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am
Re: Building the FARMS Ziggurat
Tom wrote:I've emailed the then-chairman of the Department of Ancient Scripture to determine what he had in mind when he asserted his suzerainty.
He's still alive? And you know him? Hmmm... *contemplating all the exercise I could get leaping to conclusions this morning*
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.