The Lost Patriarchal Order and the Apostolic Coup

[_consiglieri]

Also intriguing are Joseph's statements and revelations on the subject. The patriarchal order was one of the three orders of the priesthood, in his vision, along with the Melchizedek and Aaronic. The saints were to have learned more about in when the Nauvoo Temple was completed. Some have argued that it is the priesthood held by endowed and sealed couples, who could preside in their homes without the constant intervention of apostolic authority.

Thanks for bringing up this subject, Kish!

I have been very busy with work and getting the second part of Apostolic Coup d'tat ready to air, which it should doing be this weekend.

I am indebted to you for your insights on section 43 and the necessity of an appointment which appears to have been recognized even by Brigham Young. I included an important segment based on your research in the podcast.

On the subject of the three priesthoods introduced by Joseph Smith in an 1843 sermon, as opposed to the two priesthoods mentioned in D&C 107 (1835), it appears Joseph had by this point re-ordered his thought that the Aaronic and Patriarchal priesthood were the two priesthoods "experienced" by the church at that time, and that the Melchizedek priesthood was yet to be enjoyed.

I gather that because, in Franklin D. Richards' notations of the sermon, he has Joseph saying the Patriarchal priesthood is the greatest priesthood yet enjoyed in the church.

Here is what Richards made note of:

A sermon of Josephs Heb 7 chap Salem is Shiloam

Those who limit the designs of God as concerted by the grand council of H cannot obtain the Knowledge of God & I do not know but I may say they will drink in the Damnation of their souls-

I Prophecy that all the powers of Earth & Hell shall never be able to overthrow this Boy for I have obtained it by promise-
There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter

1st Levitical which was never able to administer a Blessing but only to bind heavy burdens which neither they nor their father able to bear

2 Abrahams Patriarchal power which is the greatest yet experienced in this church

3d That of Melchisedec who had still greater power even power of an endless life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man & No man can attain to the Joint heirship with Jesus Christ with out being administered to by one having the same power & Authority of Melchisedec Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.

Obviously the notes are fragmentary and incomplete. Because of the ambiguity involved, together with the way in which what Joseph Smith is reported to have said seemingly contradicts so much of current LDS doctrine, this sermon had led to a number of variant interpretations.

That is, when it is even noticed at all.

It is possible that with the organization of the Council of Fifty on Joseph's mind, he may have been carving out a super-priesthood for himself alone upon his being anointed king.

Or he may have had in mind the fulfillment of the promise in the current temple endowment of being anointed to "become" kings and priests, and had in mind the second anointing for more than just himself, where disciples were not only anointed to become kings and priests, but actually anointed as kings and priests.

As I say, a variety of interpretations can be made from this intriguing sermon.

But more to your point, what on earth is Joseph talking about with the Patriarchal priesthood?

And why don't we know more about it today?

I suppose the obvious answer to that is Joseph Smith died without giving us any more details and subsequent church leaders did not have the gift to reveal anything more.

But if Joseph Smith said the church had the patriarchal priesthood in 1843, one would think it should still be somewhere in the church he established.

Or at least the authoritative claim to have it.

[_Kishkumen]

Thanks for sharing this, consiglieri. Yes, it is very confusing. I am not sure Joseph himself had a secure understanding of the orders of the priesthood he was talking about. Richards' notes suggest to me that he started to link Melchizedek with his own aspirations to be a "king-priest." Of course, this priesthood would have to be the top-dog priesthood if it were the one through which he would be the vicarious king in place of Christ.

So, it looks like these ideas were somewhat in flux. The Church had enjoyed the Melchizedek priesthood for some time before 1843. Now, suddenly the Patriarchal priesthood is what had passed for the Melchizedek? What does that tell us of the authority of Peter? Which power was it that the apostles actually enjoyed? Not the Melchizedek, I suppose:

That of Melchisedec who had still greater power even power of an endless life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man

Note that Richards' account of what Joseph said makes no sense, if it was Melchizedek who ordained Abraham to the Melchizedek priesthood (Who else would it be?). Tvedtnes argues that Melchizedek had to ordain Abraham to the priesthood because he could not receive ordination from his wicked fathers. Which priesthood did he receive again? The priesthood of his fathers was patriarchal? He then received Melchizedek priesthood? Or patriarchal, albeit from one who has Melchizedek authority (can we assume which kind he received?). Consider the order. Melchizedek and Abraham meet in Genesis 14, whereas Abraham presents Isaac for sacrifice in Genesis 22. Abraham's blessings come after the substitute sacrifice in chapter 22 and have nothing to do with Melchizedek. So, we are to understand that, even though Abraham met with Melchizedek before he presented Isaac for sacrifice and received his blessings, God gave him the Melchizedek priesthood only after the sacrifice, and the ordination with Melchizedek must have been to some other priesthood than Melchizedek (patriarchal?).

And yet, when Smith talks about the revelation of more information on the patriarchal priesthood, he says it will come when the temple is complete, the temple wherein people receive the blessings of Abraham, who is famously known as one of the patriarchs.

I don't know how one untangles this mess.

[_Kishkumen]

I would also add that evidently the apostles did not have the Melchizedek priesthood in 1843. If they had it later, they must have received it as members of the Anointed Quorum, and this would have been the real source of their authority, not their apostleship. In that case the Apostolic Coup is Apostolic only because the people who had the authority of members of the Anointed Quorum and formed a visible organization in the exoteric church were the apostles. It was not by virtue of their apostolic authority that they seized control. That was a pretext.

[_orangganjil]

At the time Joseph was expounding on these ideas he was introducing the temple endowment and associated rites. The highest order of Royal Arch Masonry is referred to as the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and receiving it constitutes being ordained a High Priest and King. I think Joseph was introducing the High Priesthood, or fulness of the priesthood, in the Second Anointing.

This all kind of makes sense (kind of) if you assume the Patriarchal Priesthood was given to initiates in the temple during the endowment and sealing ceremonies. The High Priesthood of Melchizedek was given in the Second Anointing.

[Guest]

At the time Joseph was expounding on these ideas he was introducing the temple endowment and associated rites. The highest order of Royal Arch Masonry is referred to as the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and receiving it constitutes being ordained a High Priest and King. I think Joseph was introducing the High Priesthood, or fulness of the priesthood, in the Second Anointing.

This all kind of makes sense (kind of) if you assume the Patriarchal Priesthood was given to initiates in the temple during the endowment and sealing ceremonies. The High Priesthood of Melchizedek was given in the Second Anointing.

Wonderful, orangganjil. Thank you!

[_Philo Sofee]

Listen up you three (Consiglieri, Kish and Orangganjil)........

Your discussion is incredible! Thank you for engaging in a most stimulating concourse of supposed events in history. VERY interesting reading here!

[_Kishkumen]

I should get a hold of Greg Prince's book, as well as John Tvedtnes', on the history of Mormon priesthood.

[_consiglieri]

I was just doing a little on-line research and it appears there was another somewhat important "addition" to the History of the Church.

First, it looks like the lion's share of the work was done by none other than our friend Willard Richards.

Second, it involves the oft-heard quote from Joseph Smith about finding fault with church leaders being the first sign of apostasy.

Only it looks like maybe Joseph Smith never really said this.

I am just going to copy and paste this from Rock Waterman's blog, Pure Mormonism, where he is apparently copying and pasting the work of somebody else.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this, but based on what I have learned through Quinn's research, it sounds entirely plausible:

An Eternal Principle?

If the average members of the church today bothered to think things through, they would recognize there is something a bit off-kilter about the way their Church's leaders are currently managing the funds supposedly entrusted to them by the members. But most won't allow themselves to let critical thoughts enter their heads, because they have been conditioned to believe that challenging the actions of their leaders borders on sacrilege. You aren't allowed to find fault with the leaders, because to do so would make you an apostate.

Exhibit A: This statement attributed to Joseph Smith:

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is on the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

There's only one thing wrong with that statement from Joseph Smith.

He never said it.

Adrian Larsen has documented an entire litany of myths and false teachings that continue to circulate in the church, even making their way into our modern Sunday School manuals, as did the phony warning from Joseph Smith above. Larsen has gathered them all into a fascinating six part series titled History, Hearsay, and Heresy.

Adrian proves that the "apostasy" quote above is an obvious fake in Part 3 of the series on hearsay. I'll quote just an excerpt from his careful analysis:

This particular quote is cited [in the manual] as follows:

History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards.

Therefore, this quote is cited from three sources:

History of the Church by B.H. Roberts;
Wilford Woodruff
Willard Richards

The quote does indeed appear in Source 1, History of the Church, but that's not the original source. History of the Church simply lifted the quote from the other two sources, as follows:

First is Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, where we find the lengthy notes Woodruff took during the meeting in question. Trouble is, Woodruff's Journal completely omits this quote, though it directly (and without interruption) supplies the rest of the sermon used in History of the Church.

The other source is Willard Richards' Pocket Companion, which does contain this quote.

OK, so got that so far? Woodruff omits this paragraph from the sermon. Richards has this paragraph in the middle of the sermon. Woodruff, no. Richards, yes.

Woodruff, who was present at the meeting in question, is considered the most reliable source because he recorded the notes of the meeting while in attendance. But this quote does not appear in that record. The sermon before and after this quote appears there uninterrupted, but the quoted paragraph is completely absent.

Richards' Pocket Companion is actually a collection of material Willard Richards copied from other sources. Therefore, though this material appears there, Richards was not actually present when Joseph gave this sermon, and Richards copied the material from elsewhere, most likely Wilford Woodruff’s journal. As to how the quote in question got into Richards' Pocket Companion while NOT appearing in the original record is a mystery. Nobody knows where it came from. It is therefore hearsay and not a historical record.

We are left to wonder where Richards obtained the quote and why he stuck it in the middle of a sermon he didn’t hear Joseph give. There is no original source that contains this quotation, and Richards was on a mission in England when Joseph was supposed to have said it.

[_consiglieri]

And here is an interesting side note regarding a fellow named Charles Wesley Wandell, who was charged with assisting Willard Richards in his compilation of the History of the Church, who became disenchanted with the project and left the LDS church.

Why?

Here is a quote from Wandell:

"I notice the interpolations because having been employed (myself) in the Historian's office at Nauvoo by Doctor Richards, and employed, too, in 1845, in compiling this very autobiography, I know that after Joseph's death his memoir was 'doctored' to suit the new order of things, and this, too, by the direct order of Brigham Young to Doctor Richards and systematically by Richards." (See Marjorie Newton, Hero or Traitor: A Biographical Study of Charles Wesley Wandell, John Whitmer Historical Association).

[_lemuel]

And yet, when Smith talks about the revelation of more information on the patriarchal priesthood, he says it will come when the temple is complete, the temple wherein people receive the blessings of Abraham, who is famously known as one of the patriarchs.

Of course, one could make the argument that the Nauvoo temple was never complete...

I don't know how one untangles this mess.