One Man and the Apostolic Coup

[_Kishkumen]

Further on in Ehat I see that Joseph also tasked Brigham with conferring the fullness of the priesthood on scouts sent to explore possible western settlement options for the Mormons. One of these scouts is an ancestor of mine. Pretty interesting! This shows a definite trend of Smith using the Q12 to expand the distribution of the highest ordinances of the Church. Such precedents may have encouraged BY et al. to believe they were only carrying forward what Joseph had envisioned already.

[_Kishkumen]

In connection with the "Last Charge" as discussed after the assassination, Samuel Richards wrote to his brother Franklin:

Orson Hyde . . . said that . . . Joseph committed unto them all the keys of the Priesthood otherwise the fulness would not have been upon the Earth now [that] he is taken away. He also took them through all the ordinances which is necessary for the Salvation of Man, that they having experienced them all, by passing through them, might be prepared to lead the People in the path which they had trod when he had finished his work ordained and anointed the twelve to lead this people and build upon the foundation which he had laid he was filled with joy & sayes he it is now but little matter what becomest of me . . . he has gone to minister not only on earth but in heaven, and under the earth.

But, as the publication of the minutes of the Council of the Fifty has shown, this last charge to the Twelve does not exist in the minutes. Still the LDS Historian's Office claims:

A significant event likely occurred in this meeting, probably in the morning session, about which the minutes are silent but which council members discussed a year later in connection with a written summary prepared by Orson Hyde. Clayton’s brief note that Joseph Smith spoke “on heavenly things and many other important subjects” likely marks what was later referred to as Joseph Smith’s “last charge.” This may have been an extension of the charge relating the history, purpose, and rules of the council that was typically given to new members and that Joseph Smith may have delivered in this meeting. The most complete recorded version of this charge was written down by Thomas Bullock in December 1846.

There you have it, folks. It looks like the apostles manufactured this myth of the transfer of authority directly to the Twelve because, as Hyde himself indicated, "otherwise the fulness would not have been upon the Earth now [that] he is taken away." Since they had come to the conclusion that they must have the authority or all would be lost, they inserted in Smith's mouth the transfer of authority to the Twelve. In fact, that explicit appointment never occurred. The reasons for the fabrication as sketched out in the letter of Samuel Richards to Franklin accord precisely with my interpretation of the impasse the Twelve faced. They either seize the authority, or they lose their blessings and wives.

Remember that the Orson Hyde who wrote a summary of the meeting a year after it occurred, or, in other words, after the assassination of Joseph Smith and Hyrum, the suspicious death of Samuel Smith, and the Twelve's seizure of power, is the same Orson Hyde who readily forged documents and manufactured miracles in the service of this project to put the Twelve in charge, and then Brigham Young at the head of a new FP.

Why on earth would we trust Orson Hyde at this point? It is more likely that, in keeping with the pattern of his other fabrications, Hyde produced an embellished account of this meeting to place this authorization of the Twelve in the very mouth of Joseph Smith. Folks, it never happened.

[_Kishkumen]

Denver Snuffer offers an interesting analysis here:

http://denversnuffer.com/2016/10/joseph-smith-papers-conclusion/

He argues persuasively that Joseph Smith's appointment of the Twelve did not happen because such information does not appear in the minutes of the meeting of the Council of the Fifty in which it was supposed to have occurred. Then he points out that, even if it had occurred, the Twelve were placed in charge of the Kingdom of God, which was not the same thing as the Church of God, as Joseph Smith himself stipulated. The apostles will have then used this charge to take control of the Kingdom as their spurious justification to seize control over the Church. And, what is worse, they actually ceased to attend to their responsibility to the Kingdom in the 1880s. Thus the entire basis for the Twelve's authority over the Church, as claimed by the Twelve, is shown to be fraudulent and erroneous.

Though I disagree with Snuffer's odd non-leadership leadership of his movement, and his conclusion that the Church lost authority as a result of his personal excommunication, I have to agree with his assessment of the "Last Charge." When you put his conclusions together with the fabrications of Orson Hyde and others, a clear pattern emerges. The "Last Charge" to the Twelve is a fabrication, too. The reasons for the fabrication are pretty clear: Brigham and all the other members of the Anointed Quorum stood to lose a helluva lot if the wrong person seized control of the Church. All serious contenders who came forward were opponents of polygamy and had not received their second anointing. So, what to do?

The Twelve had to seize control. That was the only viable solution to the Anointed Quorum's problem. It worked because: 1) The Q12 was a visible and well known part of the exoteric church; 2) its members were in the Anointed Quorum; 3) its president, Brigham Young, was close to Joseph Smith, heavily invested in the Anointed Quorum, and a very capable person; 4) Brigham and the others were aware that Joseph Smith would not have wanted his system to die with him; 5) only by breaking Joseph's rules and pulling a Josephan fabrication could they save that system.

[_Kishkumen]

I would highly recommend reading Snuffer's posts on the Joseph Smith Papers from October 2016. They are very worthwhile reading.

Like many other parts of the Joseph Smith Papers, this example shows how the editors intrude into the published documents to add their defense of the institution employing them. They no doubt are convinced the institution tells a correct story of history, and therefore they construe the records to support the institution, even when it requires them to contradict the documents. But tradition should not blind us, and to read the historical documents in the Joseph Smith Papers for content, is to see that the editors often construe them to conform to a story different than the one told by the historical record.

See http://denversnuffer.com/2016/10/joseph-smith-papers/

[_grindael]

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.

Not your bad, mine. I was in a hurry and I saw that what I had written wasn't very clear and really gave the wrong idea of what I was trying to convey. It was just bad wordsmithing. So again, my bad.

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.

Yes, but not in terms of any kind of "welding link". Buerger put it better than I can,

The most significant development in Book of Mormon sealing theology was God's sealing power granted to Nephi, the son of Helaman: "Whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." (Hel. 10:7, 1st ed., p. 435).9 This passage parallels Christ's injunction to Peter in Matthew 16: 17-19: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona . . . Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The shift from bind to seal-- probably to remove "papist" associations with the text10--does not carry the soteriological and eschatological overtones which "seal" had as a New Testament metaphor. Instead, Nephi can perform miraculous physical events such as commanding a drought that will bring about a famine (Hel. 11: 4) to bring people to repentance. Thus, the Book of Mormon modifies seal to allow a human agent (Nephi), to seal metaphorically as well as a demonic agent (the devil), whereas the New Testament has only God sealing, and then strictly in an extended sense of the term. Associating a human with this power allowed Joseph Smith to introduce a whole set of theological innovations.

In this context, the 1831 ordination of high priests becomes such an innovation. In November 1831 these various concepts were transformed into a priesthood ritual allowing ordained high priests to "seal [persons] up unto eternal life" (D&C 68:2,12; D&C 1:8-9). Thus, Mormon priesthood bearers themselves could perform a ritual (no specified ceremony is mentioned) paralleling what strict Calvinists, for example, reserved solely to God. Zebedee Coltrin's 1831 missionary diary provides evidence that Mormon elders wasted no time in implementing this ordinance: "Tuesday came to Shalersville held a meeting in the Evening with the Br and after laboring with them some length of time Br David seeled them up unto Eternal life."11 Whatever form the ordinance took at that time, an empowered priesthood bearer could thus simultaneously seal a whole group of people up to eternal life; this seems to have been a spoken ritual. No physical contact between the officiator and the recipients is mentioned. (Dialogue, Vol.16, No.1, p.14)

Baptism for the Dead was a NEW innovation for Smith (in Nauvoo) as was applying the principle of "sealing" to it and then in turn, marriage. And this became an ORDINANCE. There is no evidence that Elijah gave Smith any "sealing power" in 1836. The claimed vision was written down by Warren Cowdery and Joseph never referred to it in his lifetime. W. W. Phelps is the only person who ever mentioned it, briefly, to his wife. The teachings about Elijah were radically different that what Joseph later taught in Nauvoo. Joseph would have been able to get any "sealing keys" from Peter, James and John, who supposedly got them on the Mount. There was no need for Elijah to "restore" them to Smith. This is what was taught about Elijah's "mission" prior to Nauvoo:

…be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me. Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, AND SEEK DILIGENTLY TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE CHILDREN TO THEIR FATHERS, and the hearts of the fathers to the children; And again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me. (D&C 98:14-17)

In a letter written two years later, Joseph elaborated on this concept:

…their teachings [the Elders] should be such as are calculated TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN, and the hearts of the children to the fathers. … therefore, first teach the parents, and then, with their consent, let him persuade the children to embrace the gospel also. (The Latter-day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, Vol.2, No.2, p.211).

This aligns closely with the Biblical account about the mission of John the Baptist:

And he [John] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:12-17, NIV)

Elijah returning, would not be literal, it would be a person raised up who preached with “the spirit and power of Elijah.” Joseph would later claim that John the Baptist had the “spirit of Elias”, but in 1832 the Evening and Morning Star it was reported that Elijah and Elias were the same person and hinted at a literal return of the Old Testament prophet:

Elijah was translated to paradise in a chariot of fire, and Malachi says he shall return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord: [Mal. 4:6] and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers. Now the Savior said he is come already, but the Jews knew it not, so he did not turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the following extract from Ecclesiasticus, chap. 48th, shows that Elijah, as he is called in Hebrew, and Elias in Greek, will yet come and restore the tribes of Jacob.The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol.1, No.5, p.34, October 1832

Claiming that Elias was John the Baptist reflects Joseph’s retranslation of the New Testament, for when he came to the transfiguration of Jesus in Mark, Chapter 9, he changed it to read:

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, and James, and John, who asked him many questions concerning his sayings; and Jesus leadeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves. And he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white, as snow; so white as no fuller on earth could whiten them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or in other words, JOHN THE BAPTIST AND MOSES; and they were talking with Jesus.

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph added this text about Moroni, Elijah and Elias to a revelation that he had first given in 1830:

Behold this is wisdom in me: wherefore marvel not for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel; to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim; and also with Elias, to whom I have committed the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things, or the restorer of all things spoken by the mouth of all the holy prophets since the world began, concerning the last days: and also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias; which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, jr. and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto this first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron: and also Elijah, UNTO WHOM I HAVE COMMITTED THE KEYS OF THE POWER OF TURNING THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS TO THE CHILDREN and the hearts of the children to the fathers, that the whole earth may not be smitten with a curse: and also, with Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham your fathers; by whom the promises remain; and also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days. (1835 D&C, Section L:2) Marquardt

Elijah now holds “keys” that needed to be literally restored by Elijah himself, but only to "turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, etc. which was done by preaching the gospel.

This illustrates how Joseph was now separating Elias and Elijah into two persons and therefore they both would now literally return. Joseph would LATER claim in 1839 that Moroni told him that Elijah would appear to reveal to him “the priesthood”. John the Baptist now becomes “filled with the spirit of Elias” who revealed to them the lesser priesthood; while Elijah holds the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children. Joseph also claims that Elias is the angel Gabriel who “held the keys of bringing to pass the restoration of all things.”

A year after Joseph wrote the letter above about how THE ELDERS would turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, he and Oliver Cowdery claimed to have a vision in the newly completed temple at Kirtland. In that vision, they claimed that,

…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. 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: Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—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—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.

Once again we see Elias and Elijah as separate characters, and that Elijah was only committed with the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the children of men, while Elias (Gabriel or Noah) committed to them “the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham”.

Joseph Smith has now become an Elias of the last days, with the spirit and power of Elijah that would enable him to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. There is no mention of any "sealing power" at all before Nauvoo, except in the generic sense of sealing one up to eternal life.

**It seems that the invention of another person was necessary because of the claimed restoration of two priesthoods, Elias (John the Baptist) as forerunner to the Aaronic Priesthood, and Elijah as forerunner to the Melchizedek Priesthood. Joseph then turned the word "Elias" into some kind of "forerunner" who could be anyone.

There is nothing here about Elijah revealing any "sealing keys" in 1836. This was a later ad hoc explanation that was ascribed to Elijah at that time after Joseph died. Joseph would claim later that Elijah was still to appear IN THE NAUVOO TEMPLE to reveal the "fullness of the Priesthood". This all came out of the Baptism for the Dead doctrine, which Joseph developed between the late summer of 1840 and 1842.

Marriage "sealing" was added to this concept later. There is no way that Fanny Alger was ever "sealed" to Joseph in the 1830's. If it was a marriage, it was some other kind of marriage. How that could be authorized, is a whole other discussion.

If Joseph knew all about the sealing power as taught in Nauvoo as some claim, in Kirtland, why did he say this, in 1840:

We freequently have mention made of the offering of Sacrifice by the servants of the most high in antient days prior to the law of moses, See which ordinances will be continued when the priesthood is restored with all its authority power and blessings. Elijah was the last prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and delive[r] the Keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness. It is true that the Savior had authoritity and power to bestow this blessing but the Sons of Levi were too predjudi[ced]

And I will send Elijah the Prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord &c &c.

Why send Elijah because he holds the Keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the priesthood and without the authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness. (Reported by Robt. Thompson)

Smith continually preached in Nauvoo that the "fullness of the Priesthood" would be restored in the Nauvoo Temple. That Elijah would come there. I'm unconvinced by your Martha Brotherton speculation also. The evidence just doesn't support it. But we already had that discussion.

Elijah was not the last prophet to have the sealing power, Peter had it, as per Joseph Smith.

Jesus as I said could not enter except by the administration of Jhon. Although Jhon was not a restorer but a forerunner It was not the Lawful priests who rejected jesus but the self made priests Those who were priests lawfully received the Saviour in his station which was given him by the Law All the Authority that we have is from Jhon The Law is not changed nor the ordinances The keys of ushering into the Kingdom were given to Peter James & Jhon. (21 March 1841).

Oliver Olney, May 1st 1842:

As the Keys of the Kingdom I possess
Like Peter I possess then I can save you
or Damn you as I like as

17 May, 1842 (William Clayton)

At 10 Prest. J. preached on 2nd Peter Ch 1. He shewed that knowledge is power & the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a mans being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant a mans knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life by revelation & the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood.

Joseph claimed that Peter was preaching this stuff, that he had the sealing power. This has always been taught in the church. Why then, did Elijah need to come? To fulfill the promise of turning the hearts of the fathers to the children. But that had nothing to do with the sealing power until Joseph started preaching baptism for the dead, which was not until the summer of 1840. See my (and Mike Marquardt's) article in the current issue of the JWHA Journal.

Joseph was all over the map with this stuff. For some to say that he knew everything in Kirtland is simply ignoring the actual evidence. Smith, Sept. 1842

9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?

10 And again, FOR THE PRECEDENT, Matthew 16:18, 19: And I say also unto thee, That thou art PETER, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven....

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this,(Malachi) but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is A WELDING LINK of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? IT IS BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

Funny that Smith didn't quote the Book of Mormon as the "precedent". Joseph tells us that it was his teaching on baptism for the dead that this is all predicated upon. Why then, would he say in Kirtland that he saw his brother in the the Celestial Kingdom, but couldn't understand why? There is an evolution here. It's plain as day.

And things were still evolving in 1844. My friend John Dinger has a great article coming out on the "Last Charge" in the next issue of the JWHAJournal, which he let me proof read. It's going to make some waves. Thanks for the thread, Kish.

[Guest]

Thanks for all of that wonderful information, grindael. As usual, quite illuminating. I think my point of misunderstanding was when you talked about Ann Booth and the invention of the sealing power. I am in line with Buerger when he talks of the evolution of the sealing power from the Book of Mormon on. I guess I misunderstood you initially, but now I think we are on roughly the same page.

I eagerly await Dinger's piece in the JWHA journal.

-ETA-

You know, now that I think of it, grindael, I am intrigued by the Book of Abraham's depiction of Abraham seeking the rights of the fathers, when his own father had turned his heart away from both God and Abraham, his son. There you see exactly the opposite impulse as the spirit of Elijah, which, if you consider the timing of the translation of the Book of Abraham, is rather interesting. Regardless of the monkeying around with the chronology and concepts, it is clear that very early in the 1830s, Joseph Smith was interested in the idea of the fathers turning their hearts to the children, and the children to their fathers, and Abraham 1 really fits into all of that very nicely.

[_orangganjil]

Aside from Joseph Smith's confusion regarding Elias and Elijah, which has been discussed before (they are the same person, with Elias being the Greek way of saying Elijah's name), there are two other things I'd like to point out, which also seem to be confusion/ignorance on Joseph's part.

First, and related to the Elias/Elijah mess, is that the book of Malachi was specifically moved by Christians out of its traditional location in the Tanakh (following Zechariah and prior to Psalms) and to a place as the final book in the Old Testament specifically to symbolize that John the Baptist (as recorded in Luke 1) fulfilled Malachi's prophecy. There is no Elias separate from Elijah and Elijah doesn't need to return. John the Baptist fulfilled that prophecy by turning the Jews back to the covenants of their fathers, which covenants were fulfilled by Jesus. It's really quite plain if you don't get confused, like Joseph did, regarding the term "Elias".

Second, regarding the phrase Jesus is claimed to have said to Peter, about binding and loosing, the text that Joseph changes to "seal" (Greek: δένω), as far as I'm aware, has no precedence for being translated as anything remotely similar to "seal", and this including contemporary, non-biblical texts. Jewish understanding at the time was that religious leaders had the authority to bind and loose in heaven through their decrees. If the religious leaders forbid some act, such as taking too many steps on the Sabbath, then they had "bound" the people, and the new requirement/restriction was acknowledged in heaven due to the leaders' authority. Conversely, if they removed a restriction, they were considered to have "loosed" the people. This is what Jesus was referring to with his statement about the leaders' abuse of authority as recorded in Matthew 23:4.

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others; but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to move them. Matthew 23:4 NRSV

The same Greek word translated there as "tie up" is the one translated as "bind" in Matthew 16's account of Peter being told he can bind and loose, and it means to "tie up, bind, or imprison".

Just as the calling of 12 apostles symbolized a new organization of Israel, when the Gospels have Jesus telling Peter he can bind and loose, it is symbolic of Peter now being given the authority that the Jewish religious leaders exercised. It is part of a demonstration that Jesus' followers constituted the new Israel.

In short, Joseph seems to have been betrayed by his ignorance on these two topics, creating some sort of sealing power that can be given to man, and, via the second anointing, passed from man to man. You can't make sense of it, other than to say, "He was flat-out wrong."

[_Kishkumen]

New terms for the new dispensation.