Position of James, Peter & John in LDS doctrine

[_Uncle Dale]

I am reading this, from the 1851 "Epistle of the Twelve"
page 9 -- in support of a lineal presidency for the Church:

It hath been generally believed that the Apostle, Peter, was President of the Ancient Church, (in the days of the Apostles) but this is an error. There was no revelation in the days of Brother Joseph on this subject; the conclusion was drawn from inference and not being contested was acquiesced in by the brethren. Ye will then inquire in what office did Peter stand? We answer he was the spokesman, president of the twelve Apostles, and of the whole ministry. Hence, we always find him foremost in asking and answering questions, preaching the Gospel both to Jews and Gentiles. You may say, perhaps, the keys of the kingdom of Heaven were given unto him with power to bind and seal on earth. This is true, and so it is also true that power was given unto the other Apostles to bind and seal like unto Peter. We hold that the Apostle James was president of the Ancient Church, and was only superior to Peter by virtue of his presidency: that they held all other power and authority, the keys included, jointly. James was First President. Peter was spokesman, and to this agrees a revelation of Joseph. Doc. & Cov. 3d. Ed., p. 237. "He (John) shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth: and I will make thee to minister for him and thy brother James, and unto you three I will give this power and the keys of the ministry until I come." According to this, this power, and the keys of the ministry we to be held by James, Peter, and John, which can only be accounted for by James succeeding Christ in the presidency, and after his death, John succeeding him, and Peter being spokesman during James' administration and at least some part of the administration of John. He could not have been the first president, because he was to minister for them; the less ministers for the greater. Aaron was spokesman (minister) for Moses.

How does this view correspond with the Nauvoo era doctrine of
Peter holding the keys to the sixth dispensation, after the death
of Jesus?

Any Mormon theology experts out there?

Uncle Dale

[_Yahoo Bot]

I haven't seen this before. It isn't in Messages of the FP. It is Brighamite, right?

James was considered the brother of Jesus and was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. There seems to have been ancient dispute between the primacy of Rome (Peter) and Jerusalem (James) but I can't imagine the Q12 would have known that in 1851.

If this was Brighamite, in 1851 Brigham Young was resisting the reorg of the FP, holding that the keys were instead to be held by the Q12. Indeed, that doctrine persists today. The Q12 is really the superior quorum in the church with the FP operating as its delegated executive.

[_Uncle Dale]

I haven't seen this before. It isn't in Messages of the FP. It is Brighamite, right?

No -- it's anti-Brighamite -- supposedly issued by Joseph Wood,
the President of the Twelve in Lee County, Illinois, but at least
partly written by "Patriarch" William Smith.

I'll finish posting the contents in a day or so, here:
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... .htm#pg09a

James was considered the brother of Jesus and was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. There seems to have been ancient dispute between the primacy of Rome (Peter) and Jerusalem (James) but I can't imagine the Q12 would have known that in 1851.

I think that William Smith's pretensions in that direction at least
caught the attention of Brigham Young's theologians. I expect
that one of the Pratts, or Orson Hyde may have penned an
obscure response -- maybe in the Church's St. Louis paper,
or in the Frontier Guardian. I'll have to look and see.

If this was Brighamite, in 1851 Brigham Young was resisting the reorg of the FP, holding that the keys were instead to be held by the Q12. Indeed, that doctrine persists today. The Q12 is really the superior quorum in the church with the FP operating as its delegated executive.

Actually, this was William's home-grown argument, tailored to fit his own
situation, post-Nauvoo. But he does raise some interesting points.



I'm not trying to look at this from the perspective of a critical outsider,
but instead, trying to picture the Utah Mormon response. How much of
William's theologizing overlapped with their own -- and at what point
does William diverge so greatly as to be voicing "apostasy" (in the eyes
of the Utah Mormons of that period)?

For example -- Brigham Young once justified his theoretical
power to execute apostates, based upon Peter's actions,
as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. But I think William's
view of Peter's role in the apostolic church would not allow
Peter to issue a judgment for executing a rebellious member.

More later,
UD

[_Yahoo Bot]

Well, it is interesting because you tell me it has to do with lineal succession and it uses James as a proof. I haven't seen that argued in church history before. Maybe somebody was familiar with the argument for Jacobian primacy, but even so I doubt the eastern faith conceded James' blood relation and didn't argue lineal succession.

See Eisenman's book on James the Brother of Jesus which argues the Jacobian primacy on the basis of lineal succession although Eisenman's isn't a believer. So your quote there really rang my bell. I'd be interested in the Brighamite response. I thought I'd never post again here but this one is a doozy.

For those who think I'm just blathering nonsense, Eisenman argues that Jesus is the brother of James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem and the true successor to Jesus. Could this anti-Brighamite sect have been basing lineal succession on this connection?

[Bedlamite]

Well, it is interesting because you tell me it has to do with lineal succession and it uses James as a proof. I haven't seen that argued in church history before. Maybe somebody was familiar with the argument for Jacobian primacy, but even so I doubt the eastern faith conceded James' blood relation and didn't argue lineal succession.

See Eisenman's book on James the Brother of Jesus which argues the Jacobian primacy on the basis of lineal succession although Eisenman's isn't a believer. So your quote there really rang my bell. I'd be interested in the Brighamite response. I thought I'd never post again here but this one is a doozy.

For those who think I'm just blathering nonsense, Eisenman argues that Jesus is the brother of James, who was the bishop of Jerusalem and the true successor to Jesus. Could this anti-Brighamite sect have been basing lineal succession on this connection?

Of course Eisenman has a lot more resources available to
him in his studies than did William. I doubt that William could
have even formed a complete Hebrew sentence, or would
have read a chapter in apocryphal scriptures. But he did notice
that Paul's letters and the Book of Acts depict a Peter which
did not quite fit the model of an ancient Brigham Young.

William (or one of his followers) may have happened upon
an article or heard some sermon in which James was lionized,
but I suppose that 99% of the 1851 argument came right
out of the New Testament.

The Utah Mormons would have overlapped William's arguments,
up past the point where he asserts that his father (Joseph Smith, sr.)
was a lineal descendant of the Old Testament Joseph the Patriarch.

After that... I don't know.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

After that... I don't know.

UD

For example, Brigham passed the Presiding Patriarch's office
on to another Smith -- thus undercutting William's assertion
that he (William) deserved the office. William did not
construct a justification that excluded other male relatives
of his father -- except to pretend that he himself was deserving.

Also, William tries to connect Patriarch with President, but
cannot find a descendant of Joseph in the apostolic church
at Jerusalem -- so he passes over the problem, hoping that
his readers will not notice the fact.

All in all, William's argument is not well constructed -- but it
was probably good enough to impress his Illinois followers
who were unhappy with Young and Strang. His strongest
point is his talking about James, but William did not have
the ancient resources available to him to press the point
very well. No doubt he would have been overjoyed to
have discovered a logion or two from the Gospel of Thomas,
which elevates James over Peter -- but William was not
enough of a scholar to have utilized even that sort of a
prize proof text, had it been available to him.

I find it laughable that he passes over the purported
sins of Reuben and Laman, in claiming a model for his
own authority, having ended up in a younger member
of a prophetic family. William's misdeeds would have
stood toe-to-toe with those of Reuben/Laman, had
the latter day pretender cared to own up to them.

UD

[_harmony]

[

. There was no revelation in the days of Brother Joseph on this subject; the conclusion was drawn from inference and not being contested was acquiesced in by the brethren.

Nothing new and different in that.

[_MCB]

William's misdeeds would have
stood toe-to-toe with those of Reuben/Laman, had
the latter day pretender cared to own up to them.

Could you name some of William's misdeeds, other than the known alcohol? I have not seen that, and thought he settled down in his later days.

Glad to see you back.

[_harmony]

William's misdeeds would have
stood toe-to-toe with those of Reuben/Laman, had
the latter day pretender cared to own up to them.

Could you name some of William's misdeeds, other than the known alcohol? I have not seen that, and thought he settled down in his later days.

Glad to see you back.

Somehow, William sounds like a whiner to me. And I'd also be interested in a Reader's Digest chronicle of his misdeeds (since according to Nightlion, all of Joseph's family were saints).

[Bedlamite]

...some of William's misdeeds
...

We might start with a little notice from the 1846 Millennial
Star -- and backtrack from there, examining the various
charges of impropriety leveled against William by his own
congregations in the East during the mid-1840s.

Or, we might jump ahead a couple of years and consult
his excommunication from J. J. Strang's group, followed
by his arrest and flight from justice in the seduction of
the young Hook girls in Lee County, Illinois -- or go a
year or two past that, to examine his attempted
seduction of Isaac Sheen's wife in Covington.

I've got most of this stuff posted in various spots on
the web, but have never bothered to compile it all in
one web-page. Maybe someday....

Anyway, we can start with the Star:

INTELLIGENCE AND MISCELLANY: OR, TITBITS FOR OUR AMERICAN

READERS.

Sela Lane was expelled from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Nauvoo, for base and wicked conduct, and returned to the city of New York soon after. When we were in that city in the early part of September last, this said Lane came before the church there and confessed his sins, but said that he had been led into transgression by that abominable wicked character, William Smith.

The church there told him that Walmart. Smith had more sins of his own to answer for than he would be able to cancel, and that they could not allow him to make Smith his "scape-goat." If he was received back into the church (which he weepingly desired), they told him that he must be his own scapegoat, and confess that he went into sin and transgression because he chose to do so, and not attempt to lay the blame upon another. To this he agreed, and the church then consented that he might be baptized and confirmed in the church and remain as a member.

But on learning that this said Lane threatened violence against certain ones that informed of him, we told the presiding Elder there not to baptize Lane. This said Lane then goes and joins Strang, and becomes a true joke-fellow with William Smith who led him into such awful sloughs of drunkenness and debauchery. Oh, happy pair I The glory of thy union is like the odours that rise from a den of pole-cats, or like the perfume that ascends from a putrid carcase to invite to a sumptuous feast every bird whose maw can alone be satisfied with that kind of food.

We wonder if brother Hardy believes his own pamphlet, written against Smith and Adams? or if Smith and Adams have become converted to the truth of Hardy's pamphlet, and have received him into their fellowship? Remember that that pamphlet tells of bloody deeds. But, perhaps, as Adams had ingenuity enough to screen his brother William from exposure at that time, he may now have faith and purity enough (being a celebrated reformer in the East), to cure brother William without the aid of medicine, and thus save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins.

If brother Hardy has any of his pamphlets on hand, we would recommend him to furnish his old friends, Adams and Smith, each with one, in order to stir up their pure minds, by way of remembrance, and furnish Adams with suitable matter to improve the morals of the "Drama." A man whose apostolic charge has become so extensive under Mr. Strang, can afford to advocate the claims of the drama; for it requires the same kind of spirit and talent to advocate the claims of Mr. Strang that it does to advocate the claims of the drama.

We would like to ask brother Foster, of New York, and brother Gibson, of Philadelphia, if they do not often hear Adams, Smith, Lane, Page, and Co., whisper to them and say, "How we apples swine together." As the people of England have never seen Hardy's pamphlet, we would recommend the holy brotherhood to re-publish it in the Star of the East and the Voree Herald, that its pithy contents may be the more extensively disseminated. We have one or two lying among our waste paper, but we confess that we do not like to handle them without a long pair of old-fashioned tongs.

Still, if an edition of them were circulated in this country, they might open the way for Harris, Brooks, and Co., and even for Moses Smith of "stolen goods memory," to get a place to lay their heads, which they are now unable to do without money. If the people of this country should be inclined to doubt the correctness of the above pamphlet, we can only inform them that it was written by one of their own party, whose poetic talent is rolled up in the napkin of the Star in the East. The Hardy above alluded to, is not the one that has laboured in England.

Nov. 20, 1846

UD