I spent the day in the Church Historical Library yesterday re-reading the discourses of Brigham Young for a project I am working on.
There is a six volume publication documenting every known discourse that Brigham Young ever gave located there. Every discourse contained in the Journal of Discourses is simply referenced, all others are provided in their entirety from the journals and diaries they have been collected from, for the viewer to read.
Those interested in viewing the un-sanitized version of what Brigham Young actually taught should be aware of this resource. It was compiled by Elden Watson. Between it, and the Journal of Discourses, you can read virtually every discourse of Brigham Young’s that we have public record of.
I consider Elden to be one the foremost authorities on what Brigham Young wrote including blacks and the priesthood, the Spiritual Wife doctrine, the Adam God doctrine and LDS Fundamentalism in general. I really appreciate the work he has done in compiling the discourses of Brigham Young.
It is interesting and unfortunate, in my opinion that LDS Fundamentalism has become associated with so many of the false doctrines that crept into the church AFTER the defiling of the Kirtland Temple.
The truth of the matter is that true LDS fundamentalism would be the doctrines and practices of the Latter Day Saint foundation movement between 1830 and September 11 1836 (when the Saints failed to redeem Zion by that appointed time).
1830-1836 is the time period when the fundamentals of the Gospel of Jesus Christ were taught in their purity. As early as 1831 God announced that the keys of the kingdom were with the Saints and that they had the fulness of the Gospel and the Everlasting Covenant that was from the beginning. The Saints had every covenant and ordinance they needed to become exalted during that six year window of time.
It was AFTER the great apostasy in Kirtland, which included the defiling of the temple and the breaking of the everlasting covenant and the withdrawing of the fulness of the priesthood, etc. that the Saints were no longer able to endure sound doctrine. It was after that time that the windows of heaven began to close and revelations through the prophet Joseph Smith began to dry up. It was after the six year window of time that the Spiritual Wife Doctrine as well as all of the BYBSD’s (Brigham Young B. S. Doctrines) such as blacks and the priesthood, Adam God, Blood Atonement, Second Endowment, etc. crept into the church.
Truly God began to turn the church over to Satan as he had promised to do in the book of commandments.
It occurred to me as I was re-reading some of the discourses of Brigham Young and re-reading some of his statements about the blacks, that as I was speaking about my old friend “Frank” in a previous post, and how he hated all people with dark skin, that I took it for granted that my readers knew that the doctrine Brigham Young taught was false, hence I didn’t go into detail from a doctrinal point of view.
One of these days I’ll do a post on that issue and provide scriptures documenting why, in the meridian of time, color was no longer an issue.
For now however, I do want to remind everyone that Joseph Smith NEVER taught that blacks cannot hold the priesthood and in fact, there was a black man that was ordained to the priesthood while Joseph was presiding over the church. In fact it appears that Joseph Smith or his father is the one who ordained him.
Elijah Abel was baptized in 1832 and ordained an elder March 3 1836. Eventually, Elijah was ordained a Seventy by Zebedee Coltrin.
The Mormon Heretic (Not me, but someone else calling themselves the Mormon Heretic) did a fine post on Early Black Members of the Church. I highly recommend it for those who still struggle with the bigotry that is in our church thanks to Brother Brigham. I personally believe that Brother Brigham got more inspiration from Albert Pike than Joseph Smith regarding blacks and the priesthood and the temple endowment.
Getting back to Eldon, he has also become the resident expert on the Adam-God Doctrine within the Church and if my memory serves me right he is the one that provided the historical documentation that finally convinced Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young did in fact teach what critics have been accusing him of having taught regarding that doctrine. (McConkie erroneously taught that Brigham Young never taught it in his book; Mormon Doctrine)
Many years ago I met with Elden and discussed many issues with him back when I was studying LDS Fundamentalism and the principle of plural marriage.
The other day I was perusing his personal website and noticed a few misc. articles he wrote.
One of them contained a fascinating explanation of the following very controversial verse in section 124;
“And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein. For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.”
Although I disagree with Elden’s specific interpretation and resulting spin on the above passages, I appreciate that he is one of the few LDS apologists I am aware of that truthfully acknowledges that the passages do verify that the fulness of the priesthood had been lost from the earth between the time the Saints were living in Kirtland and their ultimate migration to Nauvoo after being forced out of Far West.
He also duly acknowledges that Oliver jointly held the keys with Joseph, that were committed to them in the Kirtland Temple. Most apologists I am aware of, conveniently overlook that most important fact.
Elden erroneously postulates however, that Hyrum takes Oliver’s place in the marvelous Work which is patently false. Although Hyrum did temporarily fill in for Oliver in the 2nd watch, we shall see that Oliver shall take his rightful place in the 3rd watch.
Elden takes a huge leap when he makes the following statement;
“there was no place where the keys of Elias and Elijah, which the Lord calls the fulness of the priesthood” could be restored until the temple is built.
He makes it sound as if it is common knowledge, that the “fulness of the priesthood” is synonymous with the keys that were committed to Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple, or that those particular keys were what originally introduced the fulness of the priesthood upon the earth.
I challenge that interpretation.
The fact of the matter is that Elden is simply laying the foundation for his hypothesis. The problem is that he doesn’t give a credible scriptural reference equating the fulness of the priesthood with the committing of priesthood keys to Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple.
The reason for this is that no such documentation exists in the scriptures.
Read section 110 carefully, it never designates the committing of priesthood keys with the fulness of the priesthood.
In fact, do a key word search, the only place the phrase “fulness of the priesthood” shows up in the standard works, including the JST translation, is in section 124 is when God reveals that it has been taken away.
Elden has the same “blind spot” that all other LDS apologists seem to have. Ironically it is a blind spot that LDS fundamentalists have as well.
It is with regard to the amazing, miraculous event that took place at the conference at the Morley Farm long before the Kirtland Temple experience contained in section 110 ever took place, wherein the “High Priesthood” after the holy order of the Son of God was conferred for the first time upon the earth.
At that conference, the first two to receive the highest priesthood were Lyman Wight and Joseph Smith Jr. At his time Lyman and others of the other newly ordained High Priests had the heavens opened and they beheld the Son of God standing on the right hand of the Father.
Twenty three people on that occasion were ordained unto the high priesthood according to the voice of God out of heaven. That is a rather odd number. One would expect it to be 12 or 24. (See D&C 52 and HC 1:75-9 BTW I speculate that the 24th place was reserved for someone specific that wasn’t at the conference. Possibly Oliver Cowdery who was conspicuously missing at that conference.)
Unlike the previous reception of the lesser priesthood, which is after the order of Aaron, and the higher priesthood after the patriarchal order past down from Abraham to Moses, which were both previously bestowed upon Joseph and Oliver and other recipients according to lineage, according to mother or father, or according to the will of man as mentioned in section 84, the High Priesthood (highest priesthood) after the order of the Son of Man, was designated according to the voice of God out of heaven on that occasion at the special conference at the Morley Farm.
It was not the priesthood associated with Aaron and his seed nor was it the patriarchal priesthood which was also linear and was past down from Abraham to Moses, but rather it is the fulness of the priesthood that Melchizedek, Enoch and Elijah all obtained through covenant directly with God;
I would submit that the “fulness of the priesthood” that had been lost from the earth, spoken of in section 124 has reference to the Highest Priesthood after the order of the Son of God that was conferred at the special conference at the Morley Farm.
It appears to have been conferred at that time for the specific purpose of preparing the Saints to live consecration and establish Zion, first in Jackson county, the center place, and secondly, in Kirtland which was to be an appending stake of Zion.
That is why the first order of business after the ordinations to the Highest Priesthood according to section 52, was for the High Priests and their missionary companions to go on missions on the way to the Land of Missouri, preaching along the way. The Lord was going to designate at the next conference in Missouri where the land of Zion would be, where the Celestial law of consecration could be lived and Zion could be established.
The fact that there was not yet a temple available in 1831 was not a problem since the Saints had not yet completed and defiled a temple and since they had not yet been commanded to build one. God allows his righteous Saints to get their spiritual endowments on the mountains when temples are not available.
That was the first time that the office of High Priest within the Melchizedek priesthood was revealed and people were ordained to it. The fulness of that particular office and ordination appears to be realized when one receives their calling and election from none other than Jesus Christ, however, after the Kirtland apostasy and the eventual migration to Nauvoo, the original doctrine of calling and election as defined in the scriptures and the words of Joseph Smith seems to have been supplanted or morphed into the “second anointing” or “second endowment”.
The so-called second anointing or second endowment wherein the supposed mortal holder of the priesthood keys provides an ordinance sealing people up to eternal life, seems to have replaced the true doctrine of “calling and election”. (I acknowledge that the scriptures indicate that God’s servants will return in the 3rd watch and will be sealing people up to eternal life, however this is different than what Brigham Young was doing in his Masonic temple ordinances. I will address the topic of the “fulness of the priesthood” and the special conference in 1831 and the holy order of the priesthood and the nature of the three different levels of priesthood in a forthcoming post as well as in my upcoming with the Art Bulla.)
As I have stated and proven beyond doubt in previous posts, the land that the Lord gave to the latter day posterity of Abraham is America! Section 133 makes it clear that all of the tribes are to gather to America. The Jerusalem being spoken of in section 109 (and also sections D&C 124: 36, D&C 133: 13, 21, 24, 56) is KIRTLAND OHIO!
Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith have huge roles to play in the above passages, during the 3rd watch. They and others, like Orson Hyde, will facilitate in the redemption of Jerusalem and the returning of Judah to the latter day Jerusalem.
PROD’IGAL, a. [L. produgus, from prodigo, to drive forth, to lavish.]1. Given to extravagant expenditures; expending money or other things without necessity; profuse, lavish; wasteful; not frugal or economical; as a prodigal man; the prodigal son. A man may be prodigal of his strength, of his health, of his life or blood, as well as of his money.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Once again you prove very timely Watcher. Just today, while discussing section 84 and 107 in “gospel doctrine”, I made the comment that on multiple occasions during the Nauvoo period JS remarked that there are three grand heads/divisions/keys of the priesthood as you have described (Sons of God, Patriarchal, Sons of Moses/Aaron). Unfortunately, I drew the ire of a previous bishop of the ward, who was also a former missionary to the Nauvoo temple district, when I opined that section 86 describes a patriarchal priesthood authority passed down though JS’s lineage. It seems rather obvious to me, especially when coupled with the prophecies of Joseph of Old in Genesis and 2 Nephi 3, but apparently I was spreading false doctrine and was reprimanded as such. He corrected me by saying that the “commentary” regarding those verses describe that authority was given to JS by virtue of being part of the family of Israel, and that the ‘fathers’ spoken of are simply those of ancient times. I don’t see that the two of our interpretations are mutually exclusive, but in his eyes I was way off base. Not to worry though, I was able to practice some long-suffering and patience in this wonderful journey toward charity!
Soooo, what is the project? Something we will benefit from, I hope!
Sometimes I wish I had time to go read some of the things available in SLC.
NEPT, you are brave. I’m glad you were able to difuse the situation. We are a lesson behind you. It was very difficult to listen to the high-gloss simplistic stories of why people left/leave the church.
Watcher, I recently read an interesting take on the story of the Prodigal Son. The preacher talked about how by definition the father was prodigal when he lavished gifts and a party on his son. Watching for and running to his son was against cultural norms. Our Father in Heaven is prodigal in his love and mercy towards us. I enjoyed looking at this story from a different POV.
Now the prodigal son..being the younger brother. Which means that if Joseph was referencing to and of Oliver that he was a type of the prodigal son. Wonder who he thought was the older brother, maybe he thought of himself the older brother. Which would make sense considering the foundational events that these two shared.
I would have assumed that Joseph and Oliver represented the two bothers… if the parable can be applied to the situation beyond the insinuation made by Joseph.
I just realized that Oliver was a year younger than Joseph in real life which also fits…
On the other hand, the fact that Joseph sent the invitation to Oliver does put him more as the father figure than the brother figure…
In which case perhaps someone like Sidney might be considered as the older brother figure.
It is interesting how Sidney stayed with the church up to the martyrdom while Oliver left…. which fits the parable.
Sidney is also older than Oliver.
Lastly, there may have been some jealousy between the two since Oliver was the first associate president of the church and Sidney kind of stole the show and became equal in holding the keys with Joseph.
I have often wondered if perhaps Oliver was a typological figure for the priesthood of Aaron while Sidney was a typological figure for the priesthood of Moses…
Anyway, it is interesting to ponder the possibilities…
Well I recognized Christ as the Father. And the goods of a spiritual nature. And thanks to your wonderful expounding of how the windows of revelation were starting to close. I was then able to recognize a spiritual famine, if that is what it was.
For all we know the Lord, could have sent Joseph to be a messenger, similar to God the Father sending the Firstborn Son to be a messenger.
While, I didn’t observe Sidney as the older brother, its good for him to be brought up for a equation such as this, with his covered up spiritual aptitude. I probably didn’t think of this because of my collected notions. Since I view parables especially from Christ as parallels of spiritual truths.
While Sidney is older than Oliver, he is also older than Joseph, so that wouldn’t work if the age factor was literal. But either or, the age is quite the coincidence.
The jealousy could have been the atonement offering effect, while lust was prevalent with Joseph, other sins besides lust could have been showing through others such as jealousy. Maybe the offering was the reason for Oliver becoming like the prodigal son. Speaking of which as the more I observed this latter day offering I realized something. The greatest thing that Jesus Christ ever did was take up all the worlds sins. Did He do it by His Order? If so, partakers of that Order are they allowed to do the same partly in a part of the vineyard? Even though its to hard to believe, still to me its believable.
Even though Sidney and Joseph are equal in holding the keys, because of the seer and spokesman relationship. Joseph and Oliver are equal, of another. (Speaking of which, just wondering Watcher if you still use the email, I’ve contacted you in the past. Just want to know if you got my preface email “hidden beginnings”,regardless of the answer. Just so I can get rid of my anxiety.) In fact if Joseph were to not abide in the Lord in the 3rd watch. I believe that Oliver would take Joseph’s place as seer.
Once again you prove very timely Watcher. Just today, while discussing section 84 and 107 in “gospel doctrine”, I made the comment that on multiple occasions during the Nauvoo period JS remarked that there are three grand heads/divisions/keys of the priesthood as you have described (Sons of God, Patriarchal, Sons of Moses/Aaron). Unfortunately, I drew the ire of a previous bishop of the ward, who was also a former missionary to the Nauvoo temple district, when I opined that section 86 describes a patriarchal priesthood authority passed down though JS’s lineage. It seems rather obvious to me, especially when coupled with the prophecies of Joseph of Old in Genesis and 2 Nephi 3, but apparently I was spreading false doctrine and was reprimanded as such. He corrected me by saying that the “commentary” regarding those verses describe that authority was given to JS by virtue of being part of the family of Israel, and that the ‘fathers’ spoken of are simply those of ancient times. I don’t see that the two of our interpretations are mutually exclusive, but in his eyes I was way off base. Not to worry though, I was able to practice some long-suffering and patience in this wonderful journey toward charity!
Soooo, what is the project? Something we will benefit from, I hope!
Sometimes I wish I had time to go read some of the things available in SLC.
NEPT, you are brave. I’m glad you were able to difuse the situation. We are a lesson behind you. It was very difficult to listen to the high-gloss simplistic stories of why people left/leave the church.
Watcher, I recently read an interesting take on the story of the Prodigal Son. The preacher talked about how by definition the father was prodigal when he lavished gifts and a party on his son. Watching for and running to his son was against cultural norms. Our Father in Heaven is prodigal in his love and mercy towards us. I enjoyed looking at this story from a different POV.
Now the prodigal son..being the younger brother. Which means that if Joseph was referencing to and of Oliver that he was a type of the prodigal son. Wonder who he thought was the older brother, maybe he thought of himself the older brother. Which would make sense considering the foundational events that these two shared.
Interesting thoughts Fabledsog
I would have assumed that Joseph and Oliver represented the two bothers… if the parable can be applied to the situation beyond the insinuation made by Joseph.
I just realized that Oliver was a year younger than Joseph in real life which also fits…
On the other hand, the fact that Joseph sent the invitation to Oliver does put him more as the father figure than the brother figure…
In which case perhaps someone like Sidney might be considered as the older brother figure.
It is interesting how Sidney stayed with the church up to the martyrdom while Oliver left…. which fits the parable.
Sidney is also older than Oliver.
Lastly, there may have been some jealousy between the two since Oliver was the first associate president of the church and Sidney kind of stole the show and became equal in holding the keys with Joseph.
I have often wondered if perhaps Oliver was a typological figure for the priesthood of Aaron while Sidney was a typological figure for the priesthood of Moses…
Anyway, it is interesting to ponder the possibilities…
Watcher
Well I recognized Christ as the Father. And the goods of a spiritual nature. And thanks to your wonderful expounding of how the windows of revelation were starting to close. I was then able to recognize a spiritual famine, if that is what it was.
For all we know the Lord, could have sent Joseph to be a messenger, similar to God the Father sending the Firstborn Son to be a messenger.
While, I didn’t observe Sidney as the older brother, its good for him to be brought up for a equation such as this, with his covered up spiritual aptitude. I probably didn’t think of this because of my collected notions. Since I view parables especially from Christ as parallels of spiritual truths.
While Sidney is older than Oliver, he is also older than Joseph, so that wouldn’t work if the age factor was literal. But either or, the age is quite the coincidence.
The jealousy could have been the atonement offering effect, while lust was prevalent with Joseph, other sins besides lust could have been showing through others such as jealousy. Maybe the offering was the reason for Oliver becoming like the prodigal son. Speaking of which as the more I observed this latter day offering I realized something. The greatest thing that Jesus Christ ever did was take up all the worlds sins. Did He do it by His Order? If so, partakers of that Order are they allowed to do the same partly in a part of the vineyard? Even though its to hard to believe, still to me its believable.
Even though Sidney and Joseph are equal in holding the keys, because of the seer and spokesman relationship. Joseph and Oliver are equal, of another. (Speaking of which, just wondering Watcher if you still use the email, I’ve contacted you in the past. Just want to know if you got my preface email “hidden beginnings”,regardless of the answer. Just so I can get rid of my anxiety.) In fact if Joseph were to not abide in the Lord in the 3rd watch. I believe that Oliver would take Joseph’s place as seer.