One Man and the Apostolic Coup

[_zeezrom]

So is Ehat still an active (orthodox?) Mormon?

Yes. At least he was at the time I visited with him.

[_orangganjil]

Excellent thread, Reverand. With all of that going on, isn't it interesting that the actual work of Jesus (Gethsemane, cross, etc.) made available to all believers (multiple times in the New Testament people are referred to as being sons and daughters of God, inheriting all that Jesus provided - are we to believe that they also received their "second anointing" as well?) as symbolized by the veil being torn from the temple at Jesus' death (this makes sense if you study the Day of Atonement ritual, to which the author of Hebrews refers when discussing this topic), is being relegated to some theological backwater incapable of saving and exalting?

[_Maksutov]

The Council of 50 would have included some sympathetic non-members who could not have held the priesthood. Such individuals were likely intended to interface with gentiles when the need to send in a surrogate was there. Kind of like how Jewish Hyman Roth used Sicilian Johnny Ola in The Godfather.

[Guest]

I think Joseph, with the Council of Fifty, was endeavoring to separate the Priesthood from earthly Kingship. David was king over Israel, but Samuel the Prophet would have held the sealing keys. Therefore Samuel could lead the church without the sealing keys because he was of the right lineage. They were also teaching the right to the Priesthood by literal descent. There was much going on in this period. This is why Young later preached that he had a right to the priesthood by literal descent.

Interesting, grindael. I do agree that it was a mess. What I am less sure about is the separation of the fullness of the priesthood from the role of prophet. If Joseph had the fullness of the priesthood not only by blood right but also by rite, it would seem to me that Samuel could not skip the latter part just because he was of the right lineage. One can imagine Joseph saying to Oliver right at the outset, "Oh, I just need you to go through baptism and these ordinations, I'm saved and have all the authority I'll ever need." After all, his visions and lineage are right there at the beginning. For some reason the order of the Church was necessary to observe, even for Joseph. How could Samuel reject polygamy, not have his second anointing, and expect everyone to fall in line? I think the appointment was necessary but not sufficient. The lineage was great, but it probably wasn't as important as the appointment, and certainly could not suffice for appointment and probably not stand in for the rites of the priesthood.

That said, I am sure Emma and others would have preferred a Smith who rejected polygamy take over. From the perspective a majority of the Anointed Quorum, however, that could hardly be acceptable.

Joseph taught about calling and election early in Nauvoo. It was something that would be given as a gift from God. What Joseph did, was invent the "sealing power" that made him God on earth. (He got the idea from an English convert Ann Booth, who had a vision of people being baptized in the spirit world. Joseph then claimed that they must be baptized here, and "sealed"). This got all of it rolling.

OK, but, the sealing power appears in the Book of Mormon. Ann Booth's vision may have provided key inspiration at some point, but the sealing power itself, that whatever the person holding it bound on earth would be bound in heaven, is right there in the Book of Mormon. Booth probably helped him see new ways the power could be used.

[_Kishkumen]

I probably did not explain myself very well. Joseph encapsulated all of it. Prophet, Priest and King. Lawgiver. My comment about separation is exactly as you say, Kish, a separation of the political kingdom of God from the Priesthood, not that the Priesthood would not rule over it, but that one didn't necessarily have to have the Priesthood to be part of it. Therefore, Samuel could be appointed successor to Joseph, with the promise that he had the right to it by BLOOD. He didn't need to have the fullness of the Priesthood beforehand. David was king and did not have the fullness of the priesthood, and he was king before he transgressed, so he was raised to the leadership of all Israel without the fullness of the priesthood. The same could be applied to Samuel H. Smith. See Joseph's teachings on this from April 1844 in the Council of Fifty Minutes.

Ah, OK. My bad. You experts are so deep in this you have your own lingo. That's what being a true scholar is like.

[_Kishkumen]

Excellent thread, Reverand. With all of that going on, isn't it interesting that the actual work of Jesus (Gethsemane, cross, etc.) made available to all believers (multiple times in the New Testament people are referred to as being sons and daughters of God, inheriting all that Jesus provided - are we to believe that they also received their "second anointing" as well?) as symbolized by the veil being torn from the temple at Jesus' death (this makes sense if you study the Day of Atonement ritual, to which the author of Hebrews refers when discussing this topic), is being relegated to some theological backwater incapable of saving and exalting?

That was Nibley's view anyway. The better side of the FARMS legacy was not polemical but the quest to uncover echos of esoteric Mormonism in antiquity. So, you have the so-called Secret Gospel of Mark, which may well be a modern forgery, that seems to depict Jesus involved in administering esoteric rites to a young man. Stuff like that really blows the FARMS scholar's dress up. They also see this stuff in Gnostic texts.

[_Kishkumen]

The Council of 50 would have included some sympathetic non-members who could not have held the priesthood. Such individuals were likely intended to interface with gentiles when the need to send in a surrogate was there. Kind of like how Jewish Hyman Roth used Sicilian Johnny Ola in The Godfather.

Yeah, I can't imagine how this was supposed to work in the real world. It was wildly ambitious.

[_Kishkumen]

They were stolen by a member of a Mormon Bishopric.

"In doing research in LDS Church history, Andrew F. Ehat, . . . obtained permission to examine the restricted Nauvoo diaries of William Clayton and make notes. He gave a copy of his notes to BYU religion instructor Lyndon Cook, who kept them in his campus office. The notes were taken without permission and photocopied by . . . a member of a bishopric which uses Cook's office." (Seventh East Press, January 18, 1982)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no48.htm

Doesn't surprise me. There is a huge demand for restricted Mormon documents. One of my friends had a photocopy of the Clayton diaries in the early '90s.

[Guest]

They were stolen by a member of a Mormon Bishopric.

"In doing research in LDS Church history, Andrew F. Ehat, . . . obtained permission to examine the restricted Nauvoo diaries of William Clayton and make notes. He gave a copy of his notes to BYU religion instructor Lyndon Cook, who kept them in his campus office. The notes were taken without permission and photocopied by . . . a member of a bishopric which uses Cook's office." (Seventh East Press, January 18, 1982)
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no48.htm

Doesn't surprise me. There is a huge demand for restricted Mormon documents. One of my friends had a photocopy of the Clayton diaries in the early '90s.

Yeah, well that entire episode was a huge embarrassment for Ehat. Many have believed this led to the church archives being closed (or at least contributed to it). The leaders of the church were not happy with him.

He actually dropped out of school for a semester trying to track down all of the copies and eventually sued the Tanners (who printed their copy and it's still available on their website). Ehat won the first trial, but lost on appeal. The court eventually ruled that he did not own the copyright. I can't remember if the court stated that no one owned the copyright or if William Clayton did. Either way, Ehat lost. Much of what was leaked was quite damaging to the church (mainly the truth about Joseph Smith and polygamy).

Here's a thread with a bit more about it:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12944&view=previous

[_Kishkumen]

Yeah, well Ehat was the leak and the entire episode was a huge embarrassment for him. Many have believed this led to the church archives being closed (or at least contributed to it). The leaders of the church were not happy with him.

He actually dropped out of school for a semester trying to track down all of the copies and eventually sued the Tanners (who printed their copy and it's still available on their website). Ehat won the first trial, but lost on appeal. The court eventually ruled that he did not own the copyright. I can't remember if the court stated that no one owned the copyright or if William Clayton did. Either way, Ehat lost. Much of what was leaked was quite damaging to the church (mainly the truth about Joseph Smith and polygamy).

Here's a thread with a bit more about it:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12944&view=previous

I am sorry that Ehat had to go through that. My friend was a descendant of Clayton, so he was ecstatic to have his own copy. I am not in favor of squirreling away historical documents, but there is no denying the fact that such openness has cost the LDS Church dearly. There is a huge disconnect between the day-to-day experience of being LDS and the world of esoteric Nauvoo Mormonism. The latter continues to matter today, but the leadership is still pretty quiet about its significance.