A discussion with Mr. Scratch

[_Jason Bourne]

I have some questions pertinent to the discussion:

1. Under what authority did Joseph start the church, since we have no recorded revelation restoring the Melch priesthood?

Was the MP required? The authority is discussed in the early sections of the D&C. Section 20 refers to Joseph Smith and OC and apostle of Christ and the First and Second Elder respectively. Quinn argues that the idea of authority and apostle being a selective office in the MP actually came later. Historically there is no documentation of the restoration of the MP though many believe it shortly after the restoration of the AP in May of 1829. Some place it in June.

Others like Quinn argue that the idea of authority was lose in the first few years of the Church, that the AP and John the Baptist's visit was not discussed or widely known until 1832 and the idea of the MP was not, as noted above, introduced until 1834 or so.

Who is correct here is anyone's guess.

[_Gazelam]

From "Rough Stone Rolling" by Bushman p.117-118

"At ten the next morning, Joseph was in court again, this time before three justices who formed a court of special sessions with the power to expel him from the county. Newel Knight was interrogated about his healing, and the prosecution rehearsed the old money-digging charges. Reed said witnesses were examined until 2 a.m., and the case argued for another two hours. The three justices again aquited Joseph. Most of the onlookers were won over, includeing the constable, who apologized for his bad treatment and warned Joseph that his enemies planned to tar and feather him. The constable took Joseph out a back door, and he made his way to Emma's sister's house, where his wife was waiting. The next day Joseph and Emma were safely home in Harmony.

Joseph and Cowdery tried to steal back to Colesville a few days later to complete the confirmations that the trials had interrupted, but their enemies were too alert. They had no sooner arrived at the Knights' than the mob began to gather. The knights had suffered along with Joseph. On the night of the South Bainbridge trial, their wagons had been turned over and sunk in the water. Mobbers piled rails against the doors and sank chains in the stream. On Joseph's and Cowdery's return to Colesville, there was no time for a meeting or even a meal before they had to flee.

Joseph said they travelled all night, "except a short time, during which we were forced to rest ourselve(s) under a large tree by the way side, sleeping and watching alternately." it may have been on this occasion that Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Cowdery and, as a later revelation said, "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." Erastus Snow later said that Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph and Cowdery "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." In a conversation between Hyrum and Joseph overheard by Addison Everett, Joseph spoke of a trial involving Mr. Reed. In trying to escape the mob,

"Joseph & Oliver went to the woods in a few rods, it being night, and they traveled until Oliver was exhausted & Joseph almost Caried him through mud and water. They travelled 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 and John came to them and Ordained them to the Apostleship."

[_harmony]

Gaz, I'm beginning to think you don't understand basic English. Let me say this simply: there is no canonized revelation that restored the Melch priesthood to the earth. All the stories in the world don't matter, because they have not been voted on by the members. Authority is given, not taken. Thus, when we vote by common consent, we accept that which is presented. There is no revelation that was ever voted on that should have canonized a revelation establishing the restoration of the M priesthood. Without that revelation, the church has no authority. Thus Pres Benson is right: this church is under condemnation. It claims that which it is not entitled to.

[_Gazelam]

D&C 27:12
"12 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; "

I don't know what more you want than this. In plain english: "I sent Peter James and John to you and they ordained you to be apostles, and they gave you the keys of the same priesthood I gave to them."

This is reiterated in D&C 132:45
"For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time."

[_harmony]

D&C 27:12
"12 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; "

I don't know what more you want than this. In plain english: "I sent Peter James and John to you and they ordained you to be apostles, and they gave you the keys of the same priesthood I gave to them."

This is reiterated in D&C 132:45
"For I have conferred upon you the keys and power of the priesthood, wherein I restore all things, and make known unto you all things in due time."

When and where? Who were the witnesses? Who wrote down the revelation? When was it canonized? All you're supplying is Joseph putting words in God's mouth again, talking in the past tense as if something had actually happened. You have nothing that says the Melch priesthood was restored on X day at Y place.

We keep records, Gaz. We have since the beginning. Yet the single most important act of this dispensation wasn't recorded, wasn't witnessed, wasn't revealed to the members, wasn't canonized as a revelation. All we have is Joseph's word... and we both know what that's worth. Your claim of the power and authority to act in God's name rings hollow without those records, Gaz. (And you know better than to quote Sec 132 to me. I consider it to be a fabrication from start to finish, designed to get Joseph's butt out of the proverbial fire with his wife. It may be canonized, but it's no more the word of God than the JoD)

[_rcrocket]

When and where? Who were the witnesses? Who wrote down the revelation? When was it canonized? All you're supplying is Joseph putting words in God's mouth again, talking in the past tense as if something had actually happened. You have nothing that says the Melch priesthood was restored on X day at Y place.

We keep records, Gaz. We have since the beginning. Yet the single most important act of this dispensation wasn't recorded, wasn't witnessed, wasn't revealed to the members, wasn't canonized as a revelation. All we have is Joseph's word... and we both know what that's worth. Your claim of the power and authority to act in God's name rings hollow without those records, Gaz. (And you know better than to quote Sec 132 to me. I consider it to be a fabrication from start to finish, designed to get Joseph's butt out of the proverbial fire with his wife. It may be canonized, but it's no more the word of God than the JoD)

I don't think it necessary to get nasty about this topic.

The appearance of Peter, James and John to the prophet Joseph Smith just happens to be one of those events not contemporaneously recorded.

We see reference to this event in D&C 128:20. We read that the Melchizedek Priesthood was first given others in June 1831. There is no doubt that Peter James & John conferred it originally. (See The Seer, 148 (Eborn)). When it was conferred before June 1831 is uncertain.

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey are said to have been called as apostles in a June 1829 revelation (now D&C 18, then "Articles of the Church of Christ"). Quinn doesn't think much of this reference to date the appearance of Peter James & John, but Larry Porter points out that an early preface to this revelation described it as a "calling to this Priesthood." Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens, p. 223. See also D&C 27:12, an 1830 revelation confirming that their apostleship came at the hands of Peter James & John.

You dismiss this information by stating: "we keep records," suggesting that the absence of records means it didn't occur. Yet, Joseph Smith was not commanded to keep a record of his doings until April 6, 1830. (D&C 21:1.) This, all the more, suggests that the visit of Peter, James and John occurred some time before. (According to Brian Q. Cannon, in a BYU Studies paper, Quinn bases his theorizing in part upon some vagaries in an account by Addison Everett, published in 1881 and 1882, recounting conversations he had with the prophet; yet, Quinn ignores Everett's specific recollection that Joseph Smith told him the restoration occurred in 1829.)

You state: "All we have is Joseph's word... and we both know what that's worth." If I am not mistaken, I thought you have claimed in the past to be a temple-recommend holder and thus a faithful member of the Church. If so, then at one point in recent history you would have told your bishop that you had a testimony of Joseph Smith's restoration of the Priesthood. This would appear to undercut your current statement.

Nonetheless, we also have Cowdery's word on the subject. "I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was confer[r]ed by holy ang[le]s of God." Oct. 21, 1848 statement republished in Opening the Heavens, p. 244.

So, I reiterate my question to you, now with a little more detail. Where is there a requirement to "canonize" this event, and where was there a requirement to record this event if it occurred prior to April 6, 1830? You seem to be fairly rule-bound here. Cite the rule.

Plutarch

[_harmony]

I don't think it necessary to get nasty about this topic.

I wasn't. Neither was Gaz. Are you planning to?

The appearance of Peter, James and John to the prophet Joseph Smith just happens to be one of those events not contemporaneously recorded.

The single most important appearance relative to the power and authority to act in God's name, and it wasn't recorded? That makes no sense, Plu. Although I'm delighted that you, at least, admit it.

We see reference to this event in D&C 128:20. We read that the Melchizedek Priesthood was first given others in June 1831. There is no doubt that Peter James & John conferred it originally. (See The Seer, 148 (Eborn)). When it was conferred before June 1831 is uncertain.

The Seer isn't in the canon, last I checked. Referring to the event is not the same as the event itself being in the canon. If someone is claiming to possess the power and authority of God, the event itself had better have been witnessed, recorded, presented to the members, voted on, and canonized by common consent, otherwise it's a non-starter. We know how to detect non-doctrinal stuff, Plu... if it's not in the canon, it's not doctrine.

[snip]

You state: "All we have is Joseph's word... and we both know what that's worth." If I am not mistaken, I thought you have claimed in the past to be a temple-recommend holder and thus a faithful member of the Church. If so, then at one point in recent history you would have told your bishop that you had a testimony of Joseph Smith's restoration of the Priesthood. This would appear to undercut your current statement.

Keep on the subject, Plu. My situation is not the subject. You coming up with a canonized revelation for when the Melch priesthood was restored is the subject. Thus far, you're just dancing around with Gaz.

Nonetheless, we also have Cowdery's word on the subject. "I was also present with Joseph when the Melchizedek Priesthood was confer[r]ed by holy ang[le]s of God." Oct. 21, 1848 statement republished in Opening the Heavens, p. 244.

Not in the canon, therefore not Doctrinal and completely nonbinding.

The Melchizedek priesthood is not mentioned in the D&C at all, Plu. Not at all. Yet it is required in order to act in God's name and with God's authority. (Or are you saying it is not required?) D&C 27:12-13 says nothing about the priesthood at all. If something is that important, it seems logical that it at least be mentioned.

So, I reiterate my question to you, now with a little more detail. Where is there a requirement to "canonize" this event, and where was there a requirement to record this event if it occurred prior to April 6, 1830? You seem to be fairly rule-bound here. Cite the rule.

Plutarch

D&C 20:65 (Apr 1830)is pertinent: No person is to be ordained to any office in this church without the vote of that church. Yet we have no record of a vote regarding the Melchizedek priesthood? Had there been a revelation prior to that date, surely it would have been presented at that conference in 1830. D&C 26:2: (July 1830), and D&C 28:13 (Sept 1830) are also pertinent, since they give a name to the voting process: common consent. All things are to be done by common consent.

[_rcrocket]

D&C 20:65 (Apr 1830)is pertinent: No person is to be ordained to any office in this church without the vote of that church. Yet we have no record of a vote regarding the Melchizedek priesthood? Had there been a revelation prior to that date, surely it would have been presented at that conference in 1830. D&C 26:2: (July 1830), and D&C 28:13 (Sept 1830) are also pertinent, since they give a name to the voting process: common consent. All things are to be done by common consent.

This "common consent" provision postdates the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. However, Oliver and Joseph were sustained in their positions by common consent on April 6. After a vote by common consent, they were re-ordained to their positions.

Nor was the April 6 "common consent" provision in place when John the Baptist ordained the two the Aaronic Priesthood.

As I have mentioned, there is no requirement that the comings and goings of the Lord be documented in canon. In fact, the scriptures say that they need not be included. John 20:30. I specifically mentioned the quadraginta dierum to you in my prior post; you did not respond.

Plutarch

[_Gazelam]

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 110
Visions manifested to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Oliver Cowdery in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, April 3, 1836. HC 2: 435–436. The occasion was that of a Sabbath day meeting. The Prophet prefaces his record of the manifestations with these words: “In the afternoon, I assisted the other Presidents in distributing the Lord’s Supper to the Church, receiving it from the Twelve, whose privilege it was to officiate at the sacred desk this day. After having performed this service to my brethren, I retired to the pulpit, the veils being dropped, and bowed myself, with Oliver Cowdery, in solemn and silent prayer. After rising from prayer, the following vision was opened to both of us.”
1–10, The Lord Jehovah appears in glory and accepts the Kirtland Temple as his house; 11–12, Moses and Elias each appear and commit their keys and dispensations; 13–16, Elijah returns and commits the keys of his dispensation as promised by Malachi.

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.
2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.
3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
5 Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice.
6 Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name.
7 For behold, I have accepted this bhouse, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.
8 Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house.
9 Yea the hearts of thousands and tens of thousands shall greatly rejoice in consequence of the blessings which shall be poured out, and the endowment with which my servants have been endowed in this house.
10 And the fame of this house shall spread to foreign lands; and this is the beginning of the blessing which shall be poured out upon the heads of my people. Even so. Amen.
11 After this vision closed, the heavens were again opened unto us; and Moses appeared before us, and committed unto us the keys of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north.
12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:
14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—
15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—
16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.

[_Mephitus]

too bad elias and elija are the same person, otherwise that might have some credence.