Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood
Author: John S. Thompson
Date: 2024-08-30T01:37:27+00:00
Keywords: Melchizedek priesthood;Joseph Smith;Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints;LDS;Mormonism
Description: Abstract: Church historical sources make four differing claims as to when, how, and by whom Melchizedek priesthood was restored. These seemingly conflicting sources have led to many theories about what happened, including the idea that Joseph Smith changed his narrative and rewrote history as his ideas of priesthood evolved. A closer look at the sources, more carefully defining the terminology, and being more aware of ancient patterns provide a better solution for understanding the purpose and relationship of these four narratives and thus the nature of the Melchizedek priesthood Joseph Smith
Publisher: The Interpreter Foundation

© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — NonCommercial —
NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

ISSN 2372-1227 (print)
ISSN 2372-126X (online)

Mission Statement

Supporting The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints through scholarship.

The Interpreter Foundation supports the Church in the following ways:

- Promotion: We provide tools to encourage and facilitate personal learning by study and faith, and disseminate accurate information to the public about the Church.

- Explanation: We make the results of relevant scholarship more accessible to non-specialists.

- Defense: We respond to misunderstandings and criticisms of Church beliefs, policies, and practices.

- Faithfulness: Our leadership, staff, and associates strive to follow Jesus Christ and be true to the teachings of His Church.

- Scholarship: Our leadership, staff, and associates incorporate standards of scholarship appropriate to their academic disciplines.

The Interpreter Foundation is an independent organization that supports but is not owned, controlled by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The material published by the Interpreter Foundation is the sole responsibility of the respective authors and should not be interpreted as representing the views of The Interpreter Foundation or of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This journal compiles weekly publications. Visit us online at InterpreterFoundation.org

Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood

John S. Thompson

Abstract: Church historical sources make four differing claims as to when, how, and by whom Melchizedek priesthood was restored. These seemingly conflicting sources have led to many theories about what happened, including the idea that Joseph Smith changed his narrative and rewrote history as his ideas of priesthood evolved. A closer look at the sources, more carefully defining the terminology, and being more aware of ancient patterns provide a better solution for understanding the purpose and relationship of these four narratives and thus the nature of the Melchizedek priesthood Joseph Smith restored.

“In establishing his kingdom, church, or order, in the world the Savior seems to have pursued a certain system.”

—Sidney Rigdon1

On 27 August 1843, in the grove next to the Nauvoo temple site, Joseph Smith gave a sermon on the biblical Letter to the Hebrews, stating that it, particularly the seventh chapter, referenced “3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood” or “three different priesthoods.”2 According to those who left a record of the sermon, the Prophet referenced these three priestly orders as follows:

Willard Richards

- “King of Shiloam,”3 “the power of Melchisedick,”4 “Presthood of Melchisedek”5

- “patriarchal authority”6

- “Levitical Prest”7

James Burgess

- “the priesthood of Aron,” “Levi’s [priesthood],” “priesthood of Levi,”8 “that of Levi or Aron,” “levitical priesthood”9

- the “priesthood of . . . Abraham,” “Abraham’s priesthood,” “that of Abraham”10

- “the priesthood of . . . Melchesedek,” “Melchesedeck’s [priesthood]”11 “the order of Melchesideck”12

Levi Richards

- “Aaronic”13
- “Patriarchal”14
- “Melchisedec”15

Franklin D. Richards

- “Levitical”16

- “Abraham’s patriarchal power,”17

- “That of melchisedec,” “power & Authority of Melchisede”18

William Clayton

- “the priesthood of Melchisedek,”19 “Melchisek p’d,”20

Apart from William Clayton, who only recorded remarks concerning the Melchizedek order,21 everyone reporting the sermon portrayed the Prophet outlining the three priestly orders in a particular relative sequence. They place the Abrahamic or patriarchal order in the second position, greater than the Aaronic or Levitical but subordinate to the Melchizedek order. James Burgess’s account makes this sequence explicit: “Paul is here treating of three different priesthoods, namely the priesthood of Aron, Abraham, and Melchesedeck, Abrahams’s priesthood was of greater power than Levi’s and Melchesedeck’s was of greater power than that of Abraham.”22 Joseph Smith is also reported to have said that the Abrahamic/patriarchal order was “the greatest yet experienced in this church,” suggesting that the highest, Melchizedek order, had not yet been experienced as of the August 1843 date of this sermon.23 That some aspect of priesthood had not yet been experienced in the Church was also expressed in an earlier 1841 revelation that indicated it was necessary for the Nauvoo Temple to be built in order that the Lord will have a “place found on earth that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the Priesthood” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28).

Joseph Smith, declaring in August 1843 that the Melchizedek order of the priesthood had not yet been experienced in the Church, is the last in a long line of seemingly confusing and contradictory narratives concerning the restoration of this priesthood. As historians have pointed out, the standard narrative that John the Baptist as an angel restored the Aaronic priesthood; that Peter, James, and John as angels restored the higher Melchizedek priesthood; and that Moses, Elias, and Elijah as angels restored specific keys of the priesthood to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery is not so simple in the historical record. Indeed, there are four accounts in the sources concerning how, when, and by whom the Melchizedek priesthood was restored:

1. The earliest sources (1831) explicitly claiming a restoration of a “high” or “Melchizedek” priesthood point to the June 1831 conference in Kirtland, Ohio, wherein several elders of the Church met together and ordained each other to this priesthood, including Joseph Smith himself.24 The original entry for this conference in the official History of the Church (initially begun in 1838) declared, “The authority of the Melechisedec priesthood was manifested and conferred, for the first time, upon several of the elders.”25

2. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants is the first source to explicitly mention Peter, James, and John giving a high authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, 26 but this account only mentions they were ordained as apostles. It is not until the 1838 History of the Church that Peter, James, and John are connected specifically to a Melchizedek priesthood.27

3. The 1838 History of the Church declares that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the chamber of Father Whitmer’s house for the specific purpose of obtaining the higher Melchizedek authority whereby they could give the Holy Ghost, an authority promised to them by John the Baptist at the time he gave them the lesser Aaronic priesthood.28 In a miraculous answer to this prayer, the voice of the Lord was heard, instructing them to gather together those who had been baptized, partake of the sacrament together, obtain everyone’s consent that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery should be the First and Second Elder of the Church respectively, and then to ordain each other (and others as moved upon by the Spirit) as elders. Once these steps were taken, they were authorized to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized, suggesting this was when and how the Melchizedek authority for giving the Holy Ghost was to be restored.29 All of these instructions were fulfilled during the organization of the Church on 6 April 1830 and the gift of the Holy Ghost was indeed given at that time.30

4. In Joseph Smith’s 1838 History, the report of the angel Moroni’s appearance in September 1823 has the angel declaring that Elijah would be the one who would “reveal the priesthood.”31 Likewise, Joseph Smith’s 27 August 1843 sermon indicates not only that the Melchizedek Order had not yet been experienced in the Church (as noted above), but that “[God] shall send Elijah” in relation to it.32

These apparently competing claims of how, when, and by whom the Melchizedek priesthood was restored have led to several theories and debates about what is happening in the historical records. The school of thought that appears to have gained the most traction among more recent historians was laid out in monographs by Gregory A. Prince and D. Michael Quinn.33 Quinn’s work characteristically plumbs the depths of the sources, notes seeming contradictions, and concludes that Joseph Smith appears to be changing his ideas of priesthood and altering his histories over time.34 Greg Prince’s publication a year later also leans in the direction of shifting terminology, and thus narratives, due to a changing theology of priesthood in the mind of the Prophet. For example, he concludes that Joseph Smith’s seeming change from two to three priesthood orders in the August 1843 sermon noted above and the declaration that the Melchizedek order had not yet been experienced was a result of the Prophet’s renaming the former Melchizedek order of priesthood as the “patriarchal” order so he could make room for an additional higher order he was introducing for the first time in Nauvoo.35

The works of Brian Q. Cannon and Larry C. Porter, appearing in roughly the same time-period as those of Prince and Quinn, attempt to synthesize the data in ways more consistent with mainstream views of priesthood in the Church.36 However, they do not appear to fully engage with many of the issues that Quinn and Prince raise. More recent historians appear more influenced by Quinn’s and Prince’s compelling works. Richard Bushman defers largely to Prince’s work and conclusions concerning priesthood concepts and development in his seminal biography of Joseph Smith.37 Spencer Fluhman’s article on priesthood development also relies heavily on the work of these others for his conclusions. Fluhman’s statement that “Joseph Smith and the other brethren early on used the terms ‘elder,’ ‘high priesthood,’ ‘high priest,’ and ‘Melchizedek Priesthood’ in sometimes confusing ways” appears true to anyone who is familiar with the original sources. His conclusion that “Joseph Smith learned the hard way that as soon as he said something like, ‘We now have all the authority or power God intends for his people,’ some other authority, power, or deep insight came and rearranged the ecclesiastical furniture” summarizes current assumptions among many historians.38

Terryl Givens’s and Jonathan Stapley’s monographs likewise lean towards evolutionary explanations; however, they give greater emphasis to the idea, which the others had also noted, that much of the confusion arises from tensions and conflations of two seemingly separate priesthood traditions that they assert Joseph Smith is restoring—a male-centric ecclesiastical priesthood related to Church government and a later-developed family-centric “cosmological” priesthood related to his temple theology.39

The general conclusion these scholars develop is that the Church began with shifting narratives around a male-centric, ecclesiastical concept of priesthood. Then later, particularly in Nauvoo, a cosmological priesthood took shape in Joseph Smith’s mind, which began to rise in prominence and which included the role of women and family. However, after the Prophet died, the earlier male-centric ecclesiastical version expanded and overcame the cosmological version and suppressed it from the cultural memory of the Church (partly due to misogynistic tendencies). As Stapley summarizes:

[The cosmological priesthood] rose and fell in the history of Mormon belief. The gender-inclusive priesthood language of the Nauvoo Temple contradicted the exclusively male ecclesiastical priesthood language that developed in the church; ultimately, the latter held sway. After the decline of the cosmological priesthood as an active internal framework, Mormons spent the last one hundred years working to understand how women fit into an increasingly vast priesthood authority structure. Similarly, baby blessings, which once announced the place of children in the cosmological priesthood, grew to be a performative act of a sacerdotal and ecclesiastical fatherhood. With regard to healing, cosmological priesthood language became an area of confusion as church leaders concentrated church liturgy and authority within the priesthood ecclesiastical structures of the church and created ordinances—sacred and venerable rituals performed by priesthood officers that became the basis of worship for millions. Any analysis of authority throughout Mormon history is consequently challenged by the changing lexical terrain.40

There has certainly been some difficulty understanding the sources on priesthood that Joseph Smith left behind. The works of Quinn, Prince, Cannon, Stapley, and others have done much to gather relevant data and raise questions about priesthood not only in Joseph Smith’s day but in subsequent generations as they attempt to fully unpack and implement his restorations.41 However, the conclusions that the Prophet was changing and rewriting the narrative of priesthood origins as he went along or was evolving two different versions of priesthood (ecclesiastical and cosmological) are more likely, on closer inspection, artificial portrayals and divisions created by the scholars who promote them in their effort to make sense of the data. The liberal use of second-hand or late sources to reconstruct history as well as misunderstandings concerning the nature and terminology of priesthood that Joseph Smith was restoring appear to have contributed to some of the confusion.

When more contemporary and reliable sources are used and the nature of priesthood is better understood, the co-existence of the multiple origin narratives appears less confusing. This is not to say that the Prophet always had everything perfectly figured out from the beginning, but the framework he erects does appear to be more consistent than some have claimed, and many of the contradictions resolve themselves.

It is important to note that all four seemingly conflicting narratives of Melchizedek priesthood restoration appear to one degree or another in the singular 1838 History of the Church that Joseph Smith started with his scribes—a strange thing to do if all narratives were meant to be describing the same event. The simultaneous existence of these many narratives becomes more understandable; however, when it is acknowledged that the Prophet frequently and consistently taught that though he was restoring a singular priesthood, it was a composite priesthood of portions and degrees.

For example, after outlining several offices of priesthood within the Church, the Prophet explained in 1832 that really there were only two main offices—the priest and high priest—and all others were appendages to them:

And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood [i.e., high priests]. And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood [i.e., priests], which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons. (Doctrine and Covenants 84:29–30)

In these sources the offices of priest and high priest are not referred to as “appendages” to a general “lesser priesthood” or “greater priesthood” because these two offices were understood to be the embodiment of the lesser and greater priesthood respectively; therefore the other offices are appendages to them.42 Additionally, as an 1835 revelation indicates, the lesser priesthood (i.e., the Aaronic priest) is itself just a sub–division of the greater priesthood (i.e., the Melchizedek high priest): “Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, . . . a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:14, 17). In other words, all offices in the Church (an important distinction as will be made clear below) were viewed as portions or appendages to the one singular high priestly office.

Likewise, in 1837 “Joseph Smith jr. rose and spoke on the subject of the Priesthood. . . . all [the different offices] are necessary in their place, and the body is not complete without all the members. . . . Therefore in viewing the church as whole, we may strictly denominate it one priesthood.”43 In a sermon given in 1841, the Prophet again affirmed: “All priesthood is Melchizedeck; but there are different portions or degrees of it.”44

If Joseph Smith made four different claims to restoring Melchizedek priesthood but then provided the actual key for understanding why—i.e., that the whole of Melchizedek priesthood has different portions and degrees—then historians and theologians are duty bound by their source to try and understand how each piece, uniquely defined, fits into the whole. Simply declaring that Joseph Smith is changing his mind, and thus the narrative, because the sources appear contradictory or confusing to the modern reader is an easy way out. There is no indication that the narrative was confusing to him.

William Hartley’s and Michael MacKay’s works on priesthood restoration explore the idea that the Prophet appears to be restoring component parts of a whole.45 Hartley particularly does a wonderful job of visualizing the role of the Book of Mormon in shaping priesthood restoration.46 Approaches like theirs begin to make more sense of all the data and should likely bear greater fruit. However, they, like the others, have not yet given substantial reasons for the existence of each part nor fully defined the relationship of each to the others. Additionally, the relationship of priesthood ordination by the laying on of hands to priesthood ordination by temple rites has yet to be explained satisfactorily.

The following attempts to build on the extensive work these scholars have done but suggests some clearer terminology and proposes a relationship between all four narrative accounts of Melchizedek priesthood restoration—a relationship centered upon how each uniquely contributes to building a kingdom of God. Remaining difficulties will also be noted. Additionally, Joseph Smith and his contemporaries claimed they were restoring an “ancient order” of priesthood,47 so academic rigor and integrity with respect to this claim requires that one looks at how priesthood operated anciently. Patterns and terminology from that era do indeed give clarity to the Prophet’s multiple priesthood restoration narratives. Using antiquity as an approach to understanding the revelations and teachings of Joseph Smith has fallen out of favor among many Latter-day Saint scholars of late, but its inclusion here provides crucial insight that helps explain the sources.

The four narratives mentioned above can be placed in order of when “high priesthood” or “Melchizedek priesthood” are explicitly mentioned, giving the appearance that the first restoration of this priesthood was at the June 1831 conference. In contrast, the following organizes the sources according to the time any claim to higher authority or office appears in the sources.48 Such an ordering better demonstrates the purpose and relationship of each portion of the priesthood to its complementary parts and arguably provides a more accurate historical picture. Additionally, this approach allows ancient patterns to be more easily perceived. It should become clearer through this investigation that restoring Melchizedek priesthood was no singular event but a restoration patchwork of portions and degrees represented by the various priestly orders. Each is necessary and has a unique role in the complete construction of a kingdom of God. However, one portion did have to come first and open the way for all the other parts and degrees.

The Melchizedek Priesthood in the Wilderness for Establishing a Kingdom (Apostle)

The earliest (1829–1830) title of high authority associated with or claimed by Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others in the sources is that of apostle.49 It is not until 1835 that sources connect their reception of apostleship at the hands of the ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John50 and not until the History of the Church (initial draft begun in 1838) is their authority explicitly referenced as Melchizedek priesthood.51 Two additional sources in 1832 and 1835 mention unnamed angelic messengers bestowing a “holy priesthood,” but who and what exactly is meant is not explicitly stated.52 However, since the “holy priesthood” in the 1835 account is given by “they [plural] who received it under the hand of the Messiah,” the historian must consider that Joseph Smith may have had disciples of Jesus in mind in the 1832 account as well since the same term “holy priesthood” appears in both sources and both make reference to plural agents (“angels” and “they . . . who received it under the hand of the Messiah”) giving this priesthood—in contrast to claims of a lesser authority bestowed by a singular angel.53

The important thing is that apostleship is the first higher authority claimed chronologically. This is consistent with ancient patterns. As discussed below, the first authority Jesus appears to grant his followers in the Bible is apostleship. Likewise, Jesus first grants authority to twelve disciples in the Book of Mormon in the pattern of the Apostles in the Bible. That apostolic authority comes first is also consistent with Joseph Smith’s later teachings that an apostle, in contrast to all other authorities, is sent first into the world to establish a church or kingdom of God.

Not long after the Prophet, through the Three Witnesses, called and formalized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in February 1835, he counseled them to keep a record of their ministry. The Record of the Transactions of the Twelve was created and many of the initial instructions the Prophet gave to the Twelve were copied into it, including his remarks on the unique authority and purpose apostles have in contrast to other callings and offices:

The following question was then proposed by president J Smith Jun. (viz) What importance is attached to the callings of these twelve apostles differrent from the other callings and offices of the church. After some discussion by Elders [David W.] Patten, [Brigham] Young, M’cLellin and W[illiam] Smith, the following decision was given by President Smith, the Prophet of God. They are the twelve apostles who are called to a travelling high council to preside over all the churches of the saints among the gentiles where there is no presidency established. They are to travel and preach among the Gentiles until the Lord shall command them to go to the Jews. They are to hold the keys of this ministry—to unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven unto all nations and preach the Gospel unto every creation. This is the virtue powr and authority of their Apostleship—Amen. 54

The Prophet spoke of apostles preaching “among the gentiles” and having the keys to “unlock the door of the kingdom of heaven” to them as well as presiding over any gathering of saints or churches that were considered “among the gentiles.” More specifically, apostles preside among the gentiles “where there is no presidency established.”

During a 30 March 1836 meeting recorded in his journal, Joseph Smith clarified the labor and authority of the Apostles through their connection with the Seventy who were also called in February 1835 to assist the Twelve:55
the seventies are not called to serve tables [an idiom from Acts 6:2] or preside over churches to settle difficulties, but to preach the gospel and build them up, and set others who do not belong to these quorums to preside over them who are high priests—the twelve also are not to serve tables, but to bear the keys of the kingdom to all nations, and unlock them and call upon the seventies to follow after them and assist them. The 12 are at liberty to go wheresoever they will and if one shall say, I wish to go to such a place let all the rest say Amen.56

The combined thrust of his teachings is that the Apostles, with their assistants the Seventy, are to preach the gospel among the Gentiles and use their keys to establish churches and build them up until they can “set others . . . who are high priests” to preside over them. Once they have high priests, presumably the core of the kingdom of God is established in that place and the Twelve move on to expand the boundaries of God’s kingdom elsewhere.

While the Twelve can go anywhere, the Prophet clarified at the 2 May 1835 conference in Kirtland, just prior to the Twelve departing for their mission to the Eastern States, that
the Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes [i.e., the ecclesiastical boundaries where a high priest presides] and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the Church. . . . [Conversely] No standing high council has authority his to go into the churches abroad and regulate the matters thereof, for this belongs to the Twelve. No High Council will ever be established only in Zion or one of its Stakes.57

Interestingly, Esplin and Nielsen noted that when any of the Twelve attended a conference in an established part of the kingdom, they did not record any ministering they did in the official record of the Twelve. Rather, they only recorded their efforts in their private journals or histories, suggesting they did not view any preaching or ministering they may have done within a fully established kingdom as part of their official role as Apostles.58

In sum, the unique “virtue power and authority of [the] Apostleship” was to have authority in “the wilderness” (Revelation 12:14) where no kingdom is established and to turn the keys which they hold to establish the kingdom by eventually setting up presiding high priests and high councils. That the kingdom of God in any place was only considered fully incorporated by the appointment of a high priestly presidency suggests that Joseph Smith viewed the kingdom of God growing as a network of smaller kingdoms (or “principalities”) that were each established and appended to the whole via the Apostles and the Seventy. This is like the Book of Mormon’s portrayal of smaller kingdoms that exist within a large singular kingdom such as Melchizedek’s, who was a king in his land of Salem but “did reign under his father” (Alma 13:18). Also, Lamoni and his friend Antiomno were both kings in their lands but were subordinate to Lamoni’s father “who was king over all the land” (Alma 20:1–8).

In this context, the “keys of this [apostolic] ministry” (referred to by Oliver Cowdery as the “keys of the kingdom” when he ordained Orson Hyde an Apostle),59 appear to be keys that are specific to establishing a kingdom of heaven where one does not exist. This is not to be confused with other keys of authority restored later to operate within an established kingdom.

These later teachings of Joseph Smith to the Twelve (and to their assistants the Seventy) are consistent with the very beginnings of priesthood restoration. In fact, the Prophet explicitly likened the apostolic authority of the Twelve among the Gentile nations to the reception of his own apostolic authority prior to the establishment of the Church in the United States:

In the first place God manifested himself to me and gave me authority to establish his church, and you have receivd your authority from God through me; and now it is your duty to go and unlock the kingdom of heaven to foreign nations, for no man can do that thing but yourselves. Neither has any man authority or a right to go to other nations before you; and you, twelve, stand in the same relation to those nations that I stand in to you, that is, as a minister; and you have each the same authority in other nations that I have in this nation.60

Here, the Prophet claimed that “in the first place” God gave him “authority to establish his church” and that he, through the Three Witnesses, has now passed “this same authority”—i.e., apostolic authority—to the Twelve so they can “unlock the kingdom of heaven to foreign nations” just as Joseph has “in this nation.” These words demonstrate that Joseph Smith saw apostolic authority as the first and unique high authority for establishing and organizing an official kingdom of God or church, with the goal of eventually having presiding high priests appointed to fully incorporate it.

This account (corroborated by the earliest sources) counters any speculation that Joseph Smith viewed any other authority as sufficient to inaugurate an official kingdom of God as he did on 6 April 1830. Apostleship is the first high authority associated with and claimed by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the earliest sources prior to the restoration of the Church as noted above.61 Consequently, the earliest sources agree with the principle he taught later that apostleship is that portion of the Melchizedek priesthood that is sent first into a wilderness (among the Gentiles where no presidency exists) in order that it may use its unique authority and keys to establish and build up a kingdom. This understanding can give greater meaning to Joseph Smith’s reflection that he and Oliver Cowdery received the apostolic authority by “the voice of Peter, James, and John in the wilderness . . .” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:20).

That apostles (and Seventy) can be preceded by a lesser priesthood—which is also, scripturally speaking, a voice crying “in the wilderness” preparing the way—is a pattern in biblical antiquity and echoed in Joseph Smith’s Restoration. The supreme example is, of course, John the Baptist, an Aaronic priest who baptized with water in the wilderness, declaring that the kingdom of God was at hand but telling his followers that they needed to anticipate another who was coming after with greater authority to baptize them with fire and the Holy Ghost (see Matthew 3:1–12, John 1:1–34).

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed that an angel, John the Baptist, restored a lesser priesthood for baptizing prior to their apostleship and prior to the organization of the Church.62 They used this lesser authority to formally bring people to repentance through baptism as a preparation for their later entrance into the kingdom via the gift of the Holy Ghost (compare John 3:5).63

In sum, apostolic authority appears to be the first high authority sent to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery for the purpose of establishing a kingdom of God, building it up, and eventually putting high priestly presidencies into place to complete it. As will be seen, apostleship is the foundation from which all other high authorities or offices come into existence in likeness of Paul’s declaration in Ephesians 2:20. As Sidney Rigdon declared, “Such was the ancient order of things in laying the foundation to establish the order of God, and out of this [apostleship] all the rest of the order grew.”64 Based on this and the principle of synecdoche (a part representing the whole), it is both logical and understandable to view the restoration of apostleship as representing the restoration of the whole of Melchizedek priesthood as the standard narrative in the Church declares.

Apostleship is the authority that has established high priestly presidencies of the Church from the local stake to the general First Presidency level since the beginning. When any of these high priestly presidencies dissolve through death or other release, the keys of the kingdom held by the Apostles turn in order to reconstitute those presidencies because establishing kingdoms is their unique role, as the Prophet said. Once a presidency of high priests is established, the early teaching of Joseph Smith appears to indicate that the office of Apostle no longer regulates the affairs of the kingdom in that area. However, “an apostle is an elder” (Doctrine and Covenants 20:38) and this second title gives them another distinct authority relative to the construction of a kingdom of God.65

The Melchizedek Priesthood in the Church for
Confirming a Kingdom (Elder)

Another title of higher authority that is claimed in the earliest sources is that of elder.66 In contrast to David Whitmer’s late (1887) and questionable recollection that the office of elder was first given in 1829, Joseph Smith’s 1838 History indicates this authority was restored specifically at the organization of the Church or kingdom of God on 6 April 1830.67 As will be demonstrated, this portion of the Melchizedek priesthood was ordained specifically for the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost in the context of a Church, thus making it somewhat distinct in purpose from the apostolic authority in the wilderness noted above.

The June 1829 entry of the 1838 History of the Church provides detail concerning the beginnings of this portion of Melchizedek priesthood. In it, Joseph Smith indicated that he and Oliver Cowdery were in the chamber of Father Whitmer’s home specifically praying to obtain “the Melchizedek priesthood, which holds the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost”—an authority that the angel John the Baptist had previously promised them would soon come.68 In answer to their prayer, they heard the voice of the Lord authorizing and commanding them to ordain each other as an “Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ.” However, they were to wait until 1) they could gather with those brethren that had or would be baptized, 2) obtain the members’s sanction to ordain one another as elder and to be their “spiritual teachers” in the community, and 3) partake of bread and wine together. After doing this, they, Joseph and Oliver, could “proceed to ordain each other according to the commandment” as elders as well as any others “as the Spirit should dictate.” Only after following the above directives, the Lord added “then attend to the laying on hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”69

The 6 April 1830 entry of the History of the Church indicates that all the particulars of the Lord’s commands above were fulfilled during the official organization of the Church. After gathering in the Whitmer home, Joseph indicates
we proceeded, (according to previous commandment) to call on our brethren to know whether they accepted us as their teachers in the things of the Kingdom of God, and whether they were satisfied that we should proceed and be organized as a Church according to said commandment which we had received. To these they consented by an unanimous vote.70

Having thus established the Church and kingdom of God, Oliver Cowdery and then Joseph Smith ordained each other as elders of the Church, administered the sacrament of bread and wine to everyone, and then proceeded to the give of the gift of the Holy Ghost to those who had been baptized so they would be “confirmed members of the Church of Christ.”71 While together Joseph received a revelation that a record should be kept and in it, he should be called “an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the Church” (Doctrine and Covenants 21:1).

Two important details given in this account need to be highlighted. First, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying specifically for “the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Second, the subsequent ordinations of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others were as elders “in” or “of” the Church. The April 1830 “Articles and Covenants,” a governing document for the newly established Church, mentions that one of the express duties of an elder is: “to confirm the church by the laying on of hands and the giving of the Holy Ghost.”72 The phrase in this early source regarding the Church (maintained into the 1833 Book of Commandments) is not to confirm someone a “member of the church” but to “confirm the church.” Likewise, a July 1830 revelation declares to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, who were the First and Second Elder of the Church, “Attend to thy calling and thou shalt have wherewith to magnify thine office, and to expound all scriptures, and continue in laying on of the hands and confirming the churches” (Doctrine and Covenants 24:9). Later, the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants adds a verse that indicates elders were “to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost” but also kept the original phrase: “and to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost.”73 Thus the specific role of an elder in the early sources was to confirm the Church through the giving of the Holy Ghost. There are no sources corroborating any later assertions that elders were ordained or that the gift of the Holy Ghost was given prior to 6 April 1830.

While some scholars note the ordination of elders in connection with the organization of the Church, understanding the significance of these occurring in tandem has not really been explored. It has ancient precedence. The pattern in the New Testament was that the Apostles such as Peter and Paul were called by Jesus Christ and sent into all the world as the initial authority to formally inaugurate churches where one did not exist. Wherever early believers began gathering, sometimes through the preparatory ministry of those with lesser authority baptizing, the Apostles would come along and formally establish a church in two ways. They would ordain elders as local overseers, and the gift of the Holy Ghost would be given (see Acts 8:14–17; 11:29–30; 14:21–23; 20:16–17, 28; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1–3). Through this two-part pattern, Paul and his companions went about “confirming the churches” (Acts 15:41). The Apostle Peter’s declaration that he was “also an elder” of the church (1 Peter 5:1) signals that he not only has apostolic authority to establish the kingdom where one did not exist, but he also had authority to operate within a kingdom as an elder who can confirm members by the giving of the Holy Ghost.

The offices of apostle and elder in the New Testament thus represented respectively 1) the higher authority sent by the Lord into the wilderness to inaugurate a church where one does not exist and 2) the initial authority that apostles step into or setup within the church to confirm it, through the gift of the Holy Ghost, and initially oversee it once it had been created. The two offices are a complimentary team working together to lay the foundation and begin to build up a kingdom of God.

The complimentary roles of apostle and elder are apparent in Jerusalem where the “apostles and elders” are often mentioned together (see Acts 15:2, 6, 22–23; 16:4). This dynamic may be at play in the Jerusalem Council where Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and James, the brother of Jesus and arguably the leader of the Jerusalem elders (see Acts 21:18), are the main voices of authority (see Acts 15:7, 13). Interestingly, James may have been the one who gave the final decision of the council (“my sentence [or “judgment”] is . . .”) as the representative the Apostles set to govern the affairs within the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:19–20).74

The Book of Mormon follows a similar pattern. The first authority Jesus established in the new church he organized during his visit to the Americas was to call twelve disciples (3 Nephi 11:21–22; 12:1). Jesus later promised them another authority. Just after the gathered crowd had partaken of the sacrament, he touched each of the twelve with his hand and told them to call in mighty prayer upon the Father in his name to have power to lay hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 18:36–37; cf. Moroni 2:2–3). On the next day, they gathered the people together again and then prayed “for that which they most desired; and they desired that the Holy Ghost should be given unto them,” and the power was granted (3 Nephi 19:9–13).

If the authority to give the Holy Ghost was inherent in the initial calling of the twelve, the Savior later touching them and commanding them to pray for the power to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost would be an unnecessary redundancy. But if it is understood that the Nephite twelve were becoming elders of the Church with authorization to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, then the redundancy disappears. Through this foundation, the twelve disciples “were called the elders of the church” (Moroni 3:1).

This ancient pattern was followed in the modern restoration of priesthood. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery first claimed that they received apostleship. Then they, like the twelve in the Book of Mormon, prayed to the Father in the chamber of Father Whitmer “in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired”—i.e., to receive the authority to give the Holy Ghost.75 They were told by the voice of the Lord to gather, partake of the sacrament, lay hands and ordain one another and others as elders; then they could give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, formally confirming the existence of a church. So, again, apostleship was the high authority in the wilderness to authorize the organization of a church-kingdom, and the office of elder was the authority that apostles stepped into or placed within a newly organized church, to oversee it and confirm members into it by giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, thus confirming the church.

The fact that the early revelations indicate Joseph and Oliver had dual titles as apostles of Jesus Christ as well as elders of the Church, and that “an apostle is an elder,” suggests that, in spite of the equation, some sort of distinction must exist between these two authorities. Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations explained this distinction as outlined above. Likewise, the apostolic disciples of Christ in the Book of Mormon were also called elders but usually when they were functioning in some capacity within the church such as ordaining other church officers (see Moroni 3:1). The deep relationship between apostle and elder was carried over to the Seventy. Joseph Smith indicated that the Seventy were to come from the elders of the Church, not high priests.76

The existence of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s apostleship prior to the organization of the Church raises questions concerning the nature of apostolic authority that may have been given to others like John Whitmer, who was certified as an apostle and elder in June 1830.77 If apostles like John Whitmer had authority to establish churches by ordaining elders who gave the Holy Ghost, then their authority would not be much different than that which Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had (with the exception of the their being the “First” and “Second” elder, establishing a hierarchy within the Church).

But if apostles in the early years of the modern Church could, like Paul, be called and sent out to establish and build up churches, what need was there for formalizing a Quorum of Twelve Apostles in February 1835? Perhaps the distinction of apostolic authority in the earliest days of the modern restoration compared to that of the 1835 Quorum of the Twelve is not about the former’s being a generic term for a missionary and the latter’s having real authority in an office as some historians posit. Rather, the organization of the Twelve may simply be a formalization of apostolic authority in a defined Church body. Due to apostolic responsibility to not only build up churches but to constitute or reconstitute presidencies of high priests, Joseph Smith, as presiding high priest at that time who would gather more keys for ruling a kingdom, must have recognized that a formal body that could reconstitute a presidency of the Church with all the keys that had been given needed to reside outside himself in the eventual case of his death. The Twelve gave him a clear body where such keys were held.78

This, of course, raises another question: at what point did the Twelve have independent or self-directing authority to reconstitute a presidency of high priests? Given the nature of Joseph Smith’s instructions to the Twelve in 1835, a strong case could be made that they had authority to reconstitute the presidencies when they were first created as a quorum of the Church. Establishing the Church and high priest presidencies is the unique role the Prophet stated they already had, as noted above, and Joseph revealed at that time that “they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents [First Presidency] previously mentioned” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:24).79 However, since further authorities or keys would yet be given to the Prophet, logic would dictate that there would need to be future moments when those additional keys were also deposited into the Quorum of the Twelve, so all the authorizations of the Lord could be reconstituted along with the office.

The formal establishment of the Twelve in 1835 may have also signaled a difference of scope. The apostleship of the early years focused on establishing units of the Church in the United States, but with the establishment of the Twelve, the prophet indicated, as noted above, that they would have the same authority in foreign nations as he did in this nation. The calling of the Twelve was a benchmark to organize and formalize the worldwide scope of that office. They were sent out over the next few years on missions that included Canada, Great Britain, and beyond to unlock the kingdom, ordain elders, and confirm the Church through the gift of the Holy Ghost in those lands.

Since the authority of elder appears to be the first office born out of apostleship and is given to oversee a newly created church unit (or kingdom of God), it is understandable why some of the sources may refer to the restoration of this office as the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood. The office of elder is the priesthood office that signals the official existence of a church. It confirms the church by giving the Holy Ghost to its membership. Through the principle of synecdoche and due to its foundational role as the first authority within a new church, the restoration of the office of elder is the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood in the Church, just as the 1838 History of the Church claimed was being restored by the voice of the Lord in the chamber of Father Whitmer.

The Melchizedek Priesthood for Ruling a
Kingdom (High Priest)

As noted above, Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations seem to indicate that apostles are sent among the Gentiles to initially establish and then confirm and build up churches via elders, overseeing this process where there is no presidency of high priests. However, as a November 1831 revelation outlines “then cometh the high Priest hood which is the greatest of all.”80 Once high priests (the office embodying the totality of Melchizedek priesthood) are appointed, then the core framework of the kingdom of God was in place through which all blessings of the kingdom can eventually be administered to its constituents. High priests were the supreme religious authority in kingdoms throughout the ancient world (a title often held in tandem by the king himself),81 and it appears to be no different in the Restoration.

As already noted, the earliest source that explicitly claims a restoration of “high priesthood” is the minutes of the June 1831 conference in Kirtland wherein Joseph Smith ordained Lyman Wight and a few others to this office and then Lyman Wight ordained Joseph Smith and several others to this same office.82 Several corroborating sources affirm the Times and Seasons publication stating that at this conference “the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested, and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders,” including upon Joseph Smith himself.83 Ezra Booth (who also received the high priesthood at this conference) published only a few months later, in October 1831, that they were being “ordained to the High Priesthood, or the order of Milchesidec.”84 John Corrill, who was also present at this conference and ordained to this high priesthood, understood that on this occasion, “The Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders.”85 Parley P. Pratt’s record of this event states,

Several were then selected by revelation, through Presdent Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God; which is after the order of Melchisedec. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fulness. On this occasion I was ordained to this holy ordinance and calling by President Smith.86

Less than a year after this conference, Joseph Smith organized a presidency of this “high priesthood,” today called the First Presidency.

Pratt’s declaration that this office, in contrast to the office of elder, was a “fulness” of the Melchizedek priesthood, alongside the repeated declarations that this was the first time this priesthood was restored, should be understood in the light of Joseph Smith’s teachings already noted above: that the other offices were appendages to the office of high priest and that the high priestly office could function in the roles of all other offices. A high priest represents the very embodiment and totality of the Melchizedek priesthood.

An 1832 revelation indicates that the high priestly office is the one that administers the full blessings of the gospel, is given power over the nations, and will “bring as many as will come to the church of the first born” (Doctrine and Covenants 77:11)—a technical title for those who obtain the highest celestial glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:54–58, 71, 94). This is consistent with the Book of Mormon, revealed in 1829, which indicates that through the ministering of the high priestly office the “children of men . . . might enter into [God’s] rest” (Alma 13:6). Likewise, the Book of Abraham, revealed in 1835, explains that Abraham sought for the office of high priest because it held the “right . . . to administer [the blessings of the fathers]” (Abraham 1:2). Given that it is the office that represents the totality of priesthood and can perform the duties of all other offices, this makes sense.

Though high priests may be subject to their own internal hierarchy, as was common in the ancient world,87 a high priest has the inherent capacity, being the totality of priesthood, to fully preside in whatever jurisdiction of the kingdom they are given:

The Melchisedek priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things. . . . High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things. (Doctrine and Covenants 107:8, 10)

The parallel in the source above suggests that to “officiate in their own standing” likely means that high priests are not subject to any other priestly office, except their own internal presidency. High priests have “power and authority over all the offices;” consequently, it is their right to preside.

Again, this idea is consistent with the Book of Mormon. Alma as high priest held supreme authority within the church and all other offices or authorities within the church were ordained by him (see Mosiah 23:16–17; 26:7–8; 29:42). Again, Melchizedek was a great high priest who fully reigned as a king in his own kingdom but was still under the hierarchy of his own father (see Alma 13:18). Having total authority but still being subject to an internal hierarchy, whether ecclesiastical or familial, can explain the existence of a plurality of high priests in the Book of Mormon at any given time (Alma 46:38; Helaman 3:25). This stands in contrast to biblical Israel, which on the surface appeared to only have one high priest. The Book of Mormon reflects the broader Near Eastern world wherein multiple high priests can preside in various locales and temples but may be subject to a presiding or supreme high priest—usually the king himself.

The title high priest in the New Testament represents the totality of Jesus’s priesthood and is associated with the “order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 4:14, 5:4–10; 6:20; 10:19–22). This is also consistent with Joseph Smith’s usage. While there does not appear to be any clear canonical record that the Apostles established high priests in any of the New Testament churches, leading many Christians to view Jesus alone as the replacement for any concept of high priest, the Didache does mention that the Christian “prophets” were high priests (Didache 13:3).88 This may give additional meaning to such passages as Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11 that address the organization of the church. The close relationship of the titles prophet and high priest can also be seen in other areas of the ancient world. For example, a high priest of ancient Egypt was called a ḥm-nṯr, literally “servant of God.” The equivalent term in Coptic, hont, is replaced with the variant prophētēs “prophet” in some texts.89 Likewise, many who were called to be prophets in the Old Testament are depicted receiving their calls inside temples, before God’s throne, which was the domain of the high priest (see Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1–2; Jeremiah 1; 1 Nephi 1).

Given all the above, the declaration in Hebrews 3:1–2 that Jesus is both “the apostle and high priest of our confession,” likely indicates, using priesthood terms—the same idea as Jesus being Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Author and Finisher of our faith. His apostleship is the initial priesthood in the wilderness that lays the foundation of one’s faith and his high priesthood is the final priesthood that completes one’s faith.

The introductory material of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History indicates that it would outline: “thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels . . . forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God.”90 As noted above, the reception of the “holy priesthood” under the hands of angels is likely a reference to the apostolic authority (possibly including its lesser priesthood forerunner). Consequently, the “confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood” in this source most likely refers to the high priestly office given for the first time in the June 1831 conference—thus marking that event as one of principal significance in Joseph Smith’s summary outline of the rise of the Church.

In sum, claims that the restoration of the high priesthood office in 1831 was the first time the Melchizedek priesthood was given to the Church is correct. Not until then, in Joseph Smith’s unfolding restoration, did the Melchizedek priesthood exist in its complete singular form to which all other offices are appendages. Not until then did the highest presiding authority with the potential to administer all eternal blessings in the Church exist. Not until then could children of God enter that priesthood office which would enable them to possess all the powers of heaven and preside in their own eternal kingdom.

But if a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, as restored in 1831, was the capstone, if it were the totality of priesthood to which all others are appendages, if it were the highest presiding authority to be given from heaven in both ancient and modern times, then why did Joseph Smith state in his 27 August 1843 sermon that the Melchizedek order had still not been experienced in the Church? Why did Joseph Smith reveal in his January 1841 revelation that the Saints needed to build the Nauvoo temple so that they could have a place where God “may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:28)? Why did the Prophet indicate in his 1838 History that the angel Moroni told him from the beginning of the Restoration that Elijah would be the one who would “reveal the priesthood”?91

While some may conclude that Joseph Smith is changing what it means to have a fulness of priesthood, shifting his terminology of priesthood, or creating a new temple-centric priesthood that is different than what had been revealed to that point, the remainder of this study lays out a different path through this conundrum. While the restored 1831 high priestly office was a fulness of form, a complete whole of the offices, it still needed to grow into a fulness of ability and power. In relation to this understanding, three related threads will be explored to provide a better understanding of the final steps in Melchizedek priesthood restoration:

1. Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations speak clearly about this final fulness of the high priesthood, prefiguring his Nauvoo teachings and restoration of the full powers of all priestly offices in relation to the temple, especially the fulness of the high priestly order of Melchizedek.

2. What is the relationship between the so-called “ecclesiastical priesthood” that Joseph Smith organized in the Church and how priesthood is manifested in the temple?

3. What is the relationship between the ordinance of laying on of hands for priesthood and entering priestly orders via temple rites?

It is hoped that briefly exploring these ideas will not only provide additional clarity to the sources concerning the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood but that it will add more to the basic framework of priesthood provided so far, allowing for further study, refinement, and correction.

Elijah and the Melchizedek Priesthood for Ruling a Kingdom (High Priest Made Sure)

Joseph Smith’s 27 August 1843 sermon affirms, according to Willard Richard’s record, that the highest or Melchizedek order of the priesthood would fully be experienced through Elijah’s ministry: “[God] shall send Elijah . . . and he shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. anointing & sealing—called elected and made sure without father &c. a priesthood which holds the priesthood by right from the Eternal Gods.”92 That Elijah will “reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers . . . a priesthood” echoes Joseph Smith’s earlier claim that Moroni told him four times in 1823 that Elijah would “reveal the priesthood” (Joseph Smith—History 1:38, 43–49).

Joseph Smith calling the order of priesthood that Elijah would reveal the “order of Melchizedek” (or some variation) is no different than his use of this term for all the other high authorities restored up to this point—again, “all priesthood is Melchizedek.” However, his focus in this moment was on the fulness wherein a person’s high priesthood in a theocracy is affirmed or made sure. It was a power above, but it included that of a prophet, apostle, and patriarch, even the power of a king and priest who can stand as God himself and give laws and administer endless lives to people. Here are some relevant phrases from the sermon indicating that his focus was on the final stages or fulness of the Melchizedek order or high priesthood:

- “the last law or a fulness of the law or priesthood”93

- “a king & a pri[e]st to the most high Good [God].”94

- “kingly powers”95

- “a perfect law of Theocracy holding keys of powe[r] & bless[in]gs. stood as God to give laws to the people.”96

- “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”97

- “power & authority over that of Abraham holding the key & the power of endless life.”98

- “administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam”99

The Prophet’s declaration that in the fulness one was a “king and priest” likely meant obtaining ultimate authority in political and religious matters. Thus, priest in this context really meant high priest, for that is the office of highest authority as discussed earlier. This is not a different office of high priest than that given at the 1831 conference, but again, as will be demonstrated, it is the fullness of that office bestowed through temples, divine instruction, and after periods of testing. It is that office “made sure” in the lives of those who possess it.

The Prophet explained in his sermon that confirming or making sure this highest order required one to first demonstrate their willingness to sacrifice all things in the service of God:

- “if a man would attain—he must sacrifice all to attain to the keys of the kingdom of an endless life”100

- “Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac.”101

Further, Joseph Smith indicated in his teachings that for this high priesthood order to be finalized, it needed to be fully ordained through those rites and covenants related to Elijah and the temple, beyond the simple “laying on of hands.” Such things as anointings, sealings, and covenants signaled that one’s calling and election as a king and high priest was “made sure”:

- “of anointing”

- “Elijah . . . shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers.”

- “anointing & sealing—called elected and made sure”102

Again, to be clear, although Joseph Smith restored what can be considered a complete vessel of high priesthood in June 1831—representing the fulness of offices—that complete vessel anticipated what would be realized later, a vessel filled with power and that was “made sure.” This is what his August 1843 sermon addressed.

The fulness of high priesthood in Joseph Smith’s earliest sources

The August 1843 sermon was not the first time such ideas were taught among the Saints. Many of Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations discuss obtaining the high or Melchizedek priesthood or the “order of the Son of God” via temple oaths and covenant rituals, and divine instruction after extensive testing. These earliest sources reflect the same ideas as the fulness of priesthood outlined in his August 1843 sermon above, suggesting that the Prophet’s theology of priesthood was not changing as much as many historians claim. For example, the 1829 Book of Mormon contains a sermon from the prophet Alma declaring that one is “ordained” to a “high priesthood” associated with Melchizedek via “ordinances [plural]” (Alma 13:16). These ordinances had the unique distinction of being performed in a way that helped people understand how the Son of God would redeem them (Alma 13:1–2, 16). In addition, Alma indicated that the recipients of these priesthood ordinances obtained them only after they had demonstrated great righteousness, even “exceeding faith and repentance . . . they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish” (Alma 13:10).

Obtaining this priesthood is mentioned within the context of Alma’s teachings about those who are given to “know the mysteries of God” but they were not to reveal these mysteries unto others until they also were diligent and gave heed to God. God would reveal to them the mysteries by portion “until it is given unto [them] to know the mysteries of God until [they] know them in full” (Alma 12:9–10). Alma’s sermon goes on to suggest that these mysteries and ordinances included instructions concerning the pre-mortal life, creation, the fall of Adam and Eve, and redemption, as well as the issuance of commandments, a calling, cleansing, clothing, judgment, and an entering into the presence or rest of God.103

Alma declares that those who had demonstrated this exceeding faith and righteousness and had received these additional ordinances and instructions were considered “high priests forever, after the order of the Son” (Alma 13:3, 9–10). Additionally, they “were sanctified, having their garments made white through the blood of the Lamb,” were “pure and spotless before God,” and they “could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence.” Indeed, they were “made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God” (Alma 13:11–12). Being “high priests forever” may be a technical term indicating their priesthood was made sure for eternity. Alma further remarked that the man Melchizedek entered this order and received “the office of the High Priesthood,” was called a “Prince of Peace,” and was a “king” who “did reign under his father” (Alma 13:10–12, 18).104

Alma’s discussion of this “order of the Son” was given in response to the comments of a man named Zeezrom who was astonished that Alma and his partner Amulek had great power “given unto them”:

Zeezrom began to tremble more exceedingly, for he was convinced more and more of the power of God; and he was also convinced that Alma and Amulek had a knowledge of him, for he was convinced that they knew the thoughts and intents of his heart; for power was given unto them that they might know of these things according to the spirit of prophecy. (Alma 12:7)

Whether or not Alma and Amulek had this priestly power is a central theme of this Book of Mormon story. For example, those who rejected Alma and Amulek’s teachings forced them to watch the believing women and children being burned in a fire. Amulek desired to “exercise the power of God which is in us” to stop the killings, but Alma declared that the Spirit constrained him from using such power in that moment (Alma 14:10–13). Later, they are imprisoned, and their captors (the same who burned the believers) begin to smite them and say that because they did not save the believers from death, they must not have any real power. This suggests that part of the reason that innocents were being killed was to prove the validity of Alma and Amulek’s claims of power in this high priesthood. Indeed, the captors repeatedly smite them and taunt them saying “If ye have such great power why do ye not deliver yourselves?” and “If ye have the power of God, deliver yourselves from these bands, and then we will believe that the Lord will destroy this people according to your words. And it came to pass that they all went forth and smote them, saying the same words, even until the last” (Alma 14:15, 19–20, 24).

A climactic moment immediately follows for “when the last had spoken unto them the power of God was upon Alma and Amulek, and they rose and stood upon their feet. . .. And they broke the cords with which they were bound” (Alma 14:25). This breaking of their bands was followed by a collapse of the prison itself and the death of their captors within. In contrast, “Alma and Amulek came forth out of the prison, and they were not hurt; for the Lord had granted unto them power, according to their faith which was in Christ” (Alma 14:28). Although “exceedingly great faith” is declared as a means by which this power was given, it does not preclude the other requirements by which such power is granted that Alma outlined as noted above.

Rather than indicating a bestowal of Melchizedek priesthood by the laying on of hands, the teachings in this story of the Book of Mormon are consistent with Joseph Smith’s later Nauvoo teachings concerning the fullness or highest order of the priesthood outlined in his August 1843 sermon. Indeed, Alma’s pericope declares that ordinances performed in a manner that foreshadow the redeeming acts of Christ (which the laying on of hands does not seem to fulfill), require divine instruction in the mysteries and demonstrating “exceeding” faith and righteousness before one fully enters this order of the Son and is made a king and high priest, like Melchizedek. These are the same requirements Joseph Smith outlined in his sermon more than thirteen years later.

Another text from the Book of Mormon portrays Nephi, a prophet in the book of Helaman, preaching that many prophets before him had entered into “the order of [God’s] Son” and that in this order, even because of this order, God had given them much power, such as the ability to part seas, like Moses, and the ability to know the future, like Moses, Abraham, and all the holy prophets “which were called by the order of God; yea, even after the order of his Son; and this that it should be shewn unto the people a great many thousand years before his coming, that even redemption should come unto them” (Helaman 8:11–23).

In this context, Nephi himself seems to have this order of the priesthood confirmed upon him, not by the laying on of hands, but through a formal oath that God swears with his own mouth and “in the presence of . . . angels” as witnesses (Helaman 10:6). With this oath-rite, God promises Nephi power to smite the earth with famine, pestilence, and destruction, according to the wickedness of the people, and to rend temples or make mountains smooth, among other things (Helaman 10:6–10). This power was confirmed unto Nephi because, like the priests and Melchizedek in Alma’s sermon, he had first proven himself exceeding faithful by serving God “with such unwearyingness” and willingness to sacrifice all, even his own life, to do God’s will:

I have beheld how thou hast with unwearyingness declared the word which I have given unto thee, unto this people. And thou hast not feared them, and hast not sought thine own life, but hast sought my will, and to keep my commandments . . . even that all things shall be done unto thee according to thy word, for thou shalt not ask that which is contrary to my will. (Helaman 10:4–5)

Again, the descriptions of the priestly order in this part of the Book of Mormon are more consistent with Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo teachings concerning the fullness of the high priesthood. There is no mention of a laying on of hands, but rather kingly and divine blessings and powers confirmed by a covenant oath from God on account of a lifetime of faithful unwearying service. Mormon’s follow-up commentary on this story in the book of Helaman even outlines how this power of God has been used, recalling what seem to be the various miracles wrought by holy men outlined in scriptural history (Helaman 12:7–19).

In addition to the fulness of high priesthood in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s June 1830–March 1831 revelations concerning Genesis 1–19 also discusses a reception of priesthood via temple rites and after great testing. The Prophet’s expansions of the Genesis 5 Enochic material, likely recorded in December 1830, indicate that Adam was of an “order” in which he was known as a “son of God;” but, no mention of the mechanisms by which he entered this order appears outside the previously mentioned baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost.105

However, the “order of the son of God” is clarified a little more in Joseph Smith’s March 1831 expansions of Genesis 14. Like the Alma and Nephi narratives already mentioned, Joseph Smith reveals in his Genesis expansion that Melchizedek entered the order of the son of God only after a period of great testing wherein he “wrought righteousness,” “feared God,” “stopped the mouths of lions” and “quenched the violence of fire”—or was “tried so as by fire” (JST Genesis 14:26, 35). Melchizedek was “approved of God” by means of these demonstrations of faithfulness (JST Genesis 14:27).106 Once approved, Melchizedek was “ordained a high priest” into the “order of the Son of God” with no mention of a laying on of hands. Rather, this initiation was accomplished by means of a covenant and an oath by God. More precisely, Joseph Smith revealed, “the order of the Son of God” is “the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch” and is delivered “by the calling of [God’s] own voice” wherein God swears an “oath by himself,”—i.e., in his own name—just as he did in the story of Nephi in the book of Helaman noted above (JST Genesis 14:27–30).

As in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith revealed in his expansion of Genesis that those who enter this priesthood order by the covenant and oath of God are given godly powers. The powers include the ability to
break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course; To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world. And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven. (JST Genesis 14:30–32)

Priesthood powers to move mountains and turn rivers from their course was also promised to Enoch in Joseph Smith’s earlier December 1830 expansion of Genesis 5. In this text, Enoch’s priesthood power was not given to him by the laying on of hands, but by visionary instruction and rituals. The “Spirit of God descended out of heaven, and abode upon” Enoch, and the Lord instructed Enoch concerning a decree which he has sent forth since “the beginning of the world” even “from my own mouth from the foundation thereof” or before the world was created and will be “sent forth in the world unto the end thereof” (Moses 6:26–30). Having this decree, Enoch, like his fathers, was being sent by God to “prophecy unto this people.” After Enoch’s declarations of an inadequate mouth, reminiscent of other prophetic callings (see Exodus 4:1, 10; Jeremiah 1:6, Isaiah 6:5), God told Enoch to “open thy mouth” and through his words “the mountains shall flee before you and the rivers shall turn from their course” (Moses 6:31–34). Additionally, Enoch was told to “anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them, and thou shalt see,” after which he appears to have had a vision of pre-mortal life, “the spirits that God had created,” among other things “not visible to the natural eyes” (Moses 6:35–36). Later, Enoch declared that he was on a “mountain,” had the “heavens open,” was “clothed upon with glory,” and saw God “face to face” and the “world for the space of many generations” (Moses 7:2–4).107

While priesthood is not explicitly mentioned, the Prophet’s 1830 prelude to Genesis 1 has Moses in a “high mountain” experiencing an initial vision of God, pre-mortality, creation, and the end of the world, and he is also declared God’s “son” (see Moses 1:1–8), elements that are typically associated with the priestly order of Melchizedek (compare Psalms 2 and 110). Moses then goes through a series of three intensity-progressive temptations by Satan wherein Moses demonstrates his unyielding faithfulness to God (Moses 1:9–23).108 Because of his faithfulness, Moses appears to be given full power and authority to now command the waters “as if thou wert God,” has a repeat vision similar to the first of the earth’s creation and history, is again affirmed as God’s son; however, the second vision appears with greater, even divinely enabled, detail (Moses 1:24–40). The affirmation of power after a period of great testing, fits the fulness of high priesthood pericope Joseph Smith outlined in his August 1843 sermon.

In addition to the Prophet’s revelations on priesthood via his translations of ancient records, his May 1831 revelation for his contemporaries includes wording that also prefigures the fulness of the high priesthood he later reveals in Nauvoo. The passage in question begins with a promise of possessing godly power: “He that is ordained of God and sent forth” is a “possessor of all things” and “all things”—including “light,” “life,” “Spirit,” and “power”—will be “subject onto him” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:26–27). However, the next line seems to indicate that to be “ordained” as a “possessor of all things” requires more than just the laying on of hands, it requires that one be purified and cleansed: “But no man is a possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from sin” (Doctrine and Covenants 50:28).

The explicit means for one’s purification in the Prophet’s May 1831 revelation are not mentioned, but again, the previously noted sources, particularly Alma’s sermon, allude to other covenants and rites that allow one to be “sanctified, having their garments made white through the blood of the Lamb” and become “pure and spotless before God” or “made pure.” Joseph Smith goes on to say that a person who has achieved this full ordination can ask for anything in the name of Jesus and it will be given, but “it will be given you what you shall ask,” meaning they will only ask that which is God’s will (Doctrine and Covenants 50:29–30). This echoes the similar requirement of only using priesthood power to do God’s will that appears in the stories of Alma and Nephi discussed earlier.

Joseph Smith’s February 1832 revelation on the three degrees of glory also mentions the fulness of the order of the Son of God in connection with the highest degree of glory, resounding the earlier sources above and anticipating later uses in Nauvoo. Speaking of those who inherit the highest glory, the Prophet states that these are they
who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, . . . who are the church of the Firstborn. They are they into whose hands the Father hath given all things—They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory; and are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son. Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, . . .” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:53–59).

In this revelation, Joseph Smith equates the order of the Son of God with those who receive the fullness of celestial glory, obtain the status of god and king, and possess “all things,” including life and death, just as outlined in the May 1831 revelation above and affirmed in his Nauvoo sermon.

He further indicates that the requirements for entering such an exalted status are to “overcome by faith” and to be “sealed” by the Holy Spirit of promise. It is also important to note that the “order of the Only Begotten Son” is here referred to by alternate names: “the order of Enoch” (already identified as such in the Prophet’s expansion of Genesis 14) and “the order of Melchizedek.”

Joseph Smith first revealed in July 1831 that a temple was to be built in Missouri, but the revelation did not provide any detail as to the purpose of the temple itself (Doctrine and Covenants 57). His September 1832 revelation, however, places the priesthood’s covenant, oath, and ordinances relative to the holiest order or fulness of the priesthood in the context of the temple or house of the Lord that would be built in Missouri:

And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord’s house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church. For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 84:32–33)

If one obtains priesthood and then proves himself to the point of receiving God’s final oath and covenant, which confirms upon him powers of godliness and all that the Father has, the Prophet declares that such cannot break this covenant and “altogether turneth therefrom” lest they “not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:41). This unforgivable fate is something that Joseph Smith will address again in Nauvoo wherein he declares that those who receive the Holy Ghost and obtain the fullness of blessings and then openly rebel against God cannot repent or be redeemed and are sons of Perdition.109

Joseph Smith’s continuity of priesthood doctrine, but a developing and unfolding practice, necessarily requires that one navigate carefully what exactly is happening in the sources. Additionally, “bracketing” faith can add to the difficulty of understanding the sources pertaining to priesthood. Such a position prevents the Book of Mormon and other revelations of Joseph Smith from having an ancient complexity or theology deeper than what Joseph Smith himself may have understood when he conveyed the revelations. It forces all of Joseph Smith’s productions into a 19th century American setting and evolutionary model that can skew the meaning of the words and terminology if some of the sources were indeed ancient records or the words of a divine being whose thoughts are more complete or higher. Arguably, remaining open to the idea that Joseph Smith’s earliest revelations already portrayed the more fully developed terminology and ideas of ancient authors steeped in ancient priesthood and temple frameworks, frameworks that were often different than the Protestant religious sects of Joseph Smith’s day, is crucial to fully understanding the restoration of priesthood.

The relationship of ordination by the laying on of hands to ordination by temple rites/covenants

Consistent emphasis that receiving the fulness of high priesthood required temple rituals, divine instruction, and testing beyond the laying on of hands brings into greater focus the question: “what is the relationship between the laying on of hands that ordain one into various priestly orders and the temple rituals that also ordain one into priestly orders?” The “laying on of hands” for priestly ordination is a practice occurring in both modern and ancient sources.110 However, the Bible also suggests that initiation into the priesthood was accomplished through a series of rituals that occurred in the context of temples. For example, although Moses laid hands on Joshua in order to put some of his “honor” upon him (Numbers 27:18–23), the ordination of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood, outlined in greatest detail in Exodus 29:4–28, makes no mention of the laying on of hands but rather emphasizes their being washed with water, anointed with oil and blood, ritually clothed in priestly vestments, and eating a ritual meal in the context of the temple.

Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others were also called, and arguably received priesthood, in temple-settings where they, like the Aaronic priests, are often depicted as being ritually cleansed and clothed prior to their service in Israel (Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 1:5–11; Ezekiel 1–3).111 One difference to note, however, is that the Aaronic priests are initiated in the courtyard of the temple whereas the prophets are depicted inside the temple proper or in the presence of God on his throne when they are initiated, suggesting theirs was a greater priesthood.112 During the Second Temple period in Ancient Israel, the initiation of Joshua into the high priesthood, recorded in Zechariah 3:1–7, seems to have included a temple drama portraying a confrontation between Jehovah and Satan as the context for his receiving his priestly vestments and priesthood.113

In the New Testament period, there is evidence that priesthood authority may have been bestowed by the laying on of hands (e.g., see Acts 6:5–6, 13:3; 1 Timothy 14:4); however, the Epistle to the Hebrews declares that a man cannot take the priesthood unto himself unless he was “called of God, as was Aaron” (Hebrews 5:4). Since, as noted above, Aaron was ordained to priesthood via temple-centric rites in the Old Testament records that they possessed, this passage in Hebrews can indicate that even the early Christians understood priesthood initiation to include temple rites. Indeed, the letter to the Hebrews goes on to mention that after Abraham “patiently endured, he obtained the promise,” and that God “confirmed it by an oath” which is then likened to a soul who “entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 6:15–20). This passage suggests that the early Christians understood Abraham to have entered the priesthood order of Melchizedek via an “oath” after having “patiently endured.” This is likely an allusion to the ordeal of Isaac being bound, for that is when God swore the oath to Abraham (see Genesis 22:15–18).

Latter-day Saints understand that Abraham received priesthood much earlier in his life than in this moment. The biblical text depicts him offering sacrifices, preaching, prophesying, getting married, entering into the new and everlasting covenant with God, leading a family, giving blessings, and so forth. The Letter to the Hebrews, however, states that Abraham didn’t have the Melchizedek order confirmed until after the Isaac ordeal and oath from God very late in his life just as Joseph Smith highlighted in his August 1843 sermon. Hebrews also shows that the early Christians likened the Melchizedek order to entering the holy of holies, for example, “within the veil,” of the temple. Even more evidence for attaining priesthood relative to temple covenants and teachings in the Early Christian era is emerging from current New Testament scholars who are increasingly arguing for the existence of secret teachings and temple rituals in the days of Christ and his Apostles.114

From the beginning of the modern Church, the laying on of hands alone seemed to be the mechanism by which one is authorized to fully officiate in priestly duties (see also Article of Faith 5). For example, being ordained to the fullness of the Aaronic priesthood or office of priest by the laying of hands immediately authorizes one to baptize, to offer the sacrifice of the Lord’s supper, and to ordain other priests. In contrast, authorization for similar duties in the biblical world required that one first be initiated a priest via temple rites. So, if one can do all their priestly duties by the laying on of hands only, then what purpose does a modern temple initiation into the Aaronic order serve? The same is true for one ordained a high priest by laying on of hands versus one receiving the fulness of a high priest via temple rites. Why is entering the order of Melchizedek in the temple even necessary if the laying on of hands seemingly gives a high priest all the authorization they need to preside in a kingdom?

An answer can be found in the theological doctrine of justification—a concept that includes the idea that one can be given a status in advance of when they fully become what that status indicates. For example, members of the Church are given the title saint (from the Latin meaning holy one) as soon as they enter into the Church by baptism, but this title technically and more precisely indicates their future state when they are fully sanctified and made holy.115 Likewise, the gift of the Holy Ghost is given at the beginning of one’s spiritual journey by the laying on of hands, but Joseph Smith declared in 1836 that the “fullness” of the Holy Ghost is actually obtained through temple worship (Doctrine and Covenants 109:14–15). Alma likened baptism to partaking of the tree of life (Alma 5:62, prefigured by the tree of life in Lehi’s vision that represented a birth scene) but the tree of life in its fullest form is the symbolic end of one’s spiritual journey in the celestial kingdom as depicted by John the Revelator (Revelation 22:1–2).

Through the doctrine of justification made possible through Jesus Christ, titles, the Holy Ghost, and even the status of eternal life can be given and enjoyed at the beginning of one’s journey because there is a recognition that one will eventually fulfill all expectations or fully grow into the status given. Such a doctrine would allow the laying on of hands to represent an initiation into a priestly order, with full authority to act as such, even though one had not yet fulfilled all the requirements of the temple to fully enter that order.

This appears to be the basis for Joseph Smith’s teaching that all “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations” would cease to have authority “in and after the resurrection” unless they were fully “sealed up” as part of one’s temple worship (Doctrine and Covenants 132:7), suggesting he understood that temporary measures were in place via justification until the Church could truly fulfill the requirements that God’s law required as administered in the temple. All ordinances, covenants, and priestly rites must, as the Lord stated in Joseph Smith’s January 1841 revelation, be “ordained by the ordinance of my holy house” (Doctrine and Covenants 124:39).

Such a view would also explain why Oliver Cowdery told the initial Twelve Apostles ordained in February 1835 that “your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid his hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us.”116 This comment suggests they understood that additional measures were needed to be Apostles in the fullest sense. Yet the Twelve immediately went about doing their duties anyway. Likewise, Joseph Smith’s aforementioned 1832 revelation appears to teach that after receiving the priesthood by the laying on of hands, one can “magnify” this priesthood by remaining faithful through various trials of fire until he is “approved of God.” When approved, great power and titles in the priesthood are “ordained” or confirmed by means of further instruction and ordinances, including a final “covenant” that contains an “oath” from God (Doctrine and Covenants 84:33, 39).

Considering this evidence, the initial laying on of hands to initiate one into any priestly order does indeed bestow authority, but it is a conditional authority given by the justification of grace. Such a conditional bestowal allows for God’s sons to learn and act in their priestly orders until such a time as they can fully confirm their priesthood via the temple rites, covenants, and demonstrations of faithfulness. Through their ascent in the temple, they eventually make their priesthood sure and efficacious in and after the resurrection. It becomes thereby an eternal priesthood.

The relationship of the so-called ecclesiastical priesthood and temple priesthood

One’s ordination into various orders via the laying on of hands and one’s ordination into various order via temple rites, raises questions concerning the relationship of the priestly orders in the Church and the priestly orders of the temple. While some assume that so-called “temple” or “cosmic” priesthood was a later development of Joseph Smith and is distinct from his so-called “ecclesiastical” orders set up in the Church, a closer examination of the sources do not require that such a distinction existed.

As noted earlier, the Prophet’s circa April 1835 revelation affirmed that “there are, in the church, two priesthoods, . . . two divisions or grand heads—one is the Melchizedek priesthood [high priest], and the other is the Aaronic, or Levitical Priesthood [priest]” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:1–3).117 All other offices in the Church are appendages to the high priest and priest. This bipartite division in the Church provides clear equivalence to the two main priestly orders functioning in the temple which is itself divided between two principal domains of priest and high priest, the Aaronic and Melchizedek orders. The “world” or “telestial” rooms (and by extension the baptistries and initiatory rooms) in modern temples are where preparatory rites and covenants are administered for initiation into the Aaronic order (the modern equivalent of ancient temple courtyards). The “terrestrial” rooms and sealing rooms by extension (the modern equivalent of the ancient temple’s holy place) are where covenants and rites are administered with respect to the higher Melchizedek order as a preparation for entering the presence of the Lord. Likewise, the earliest priestly sources in the Bible have priests functioning in the courtyard and high priests inside the temple’s holy place.118

Consequently, ordination into the order of priest in the Church by the laying on of hands finds its fulness in the rites and covenants relative to the Aaronic order of the temple. Likewise, initiation into the order of high priest is made sure and finds its fulness in the complete rites and covenants relative to the Melchizedek order of the temple. Brigham Young understood this two-part division of the temple and even suggested that the Church could theoretically provide the Aaronic portion of the endowment to a priest and send such a one on a mission or perform other tasks to prove themselves prior to their higher ordinations and receiving the Melchizedek portion of the endowment and other higher blessings.119

The offices of deacon and teacher are appendages to the office of priest and do not necessarily need to be ritually represented in the temple. Likewise, the ancient Levites did not participate in the same temple initiation that the sons of Aaron as priests experienced (compare Exodus 29 to Numbers 8:7–16). However, the Levites did assist the priests in the temple anciently, demonstrating that lesser appendages may be present. In a similar manner, the office of elder is an appendage to the high priest and does not necessarily need to be ritually reflected in the temple though that office may functionally play a role.

Notwithstanding these two grand divisions, Joseph Smith’s August 1843 sermon outlined three temple orders of the priesthood, not two. He called the additional priestly order the “patriarchal” order, identified it with Abraham, and said it was greater than the Aaronic priestly order but subordinate to the Melchizedek high priestly order.120 So what relationship does the “patriarchal order” of the temple have, if any, to the offices in the Church?

Today an elder of the Church can enter the patriarchal order through temple marriage, so one might view that office as the one connected to and fulfilled ritually in the “patriarchal order” of the temple (all being appendages and preparations for entering the fulness of high priesthood wherein all blessings are made sure). However, Joseph Smith’s restoration of the office of Patriarch may be a better entity to compare with the patriarchal order of the temple.

Joseph Smith initiated his father, Joseph Smith Sr., into the office of Patriarch in 1834 by the laying on of hands.121 Not long before the death of Joseph Smith Sr., he ordained his son, Hyrum Smith, to this office in September 1840.122 According to a May 1835 revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 107:39–40) and the earlier practice of conveying this office from father to son in the Church, the order of Patriarch appears to represent the idea that priesthood was ultimately to be inherited by lineage. Some may suppose that only this office was meant to be inherited. However, since the order of Patriarch is a part of and a preparation for the full Melchizedek order, it is likely that the whole of priesthood was meant to be organized into family lineages and given as an inheritance as some of Joseph Smith revelations indicate:123

Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. (Doctrine and Covenants 86:8–9)

Questions by Elias Higbee: What is meant by the command in Isaiah, 52d chapter, 1st verse, which saith: Put on thy strength, O Zion—and what people had Isaiah reference to? He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost. (Doctrine and Covenants 113:8)

A patriarch’s purpose of declaring lineages in connection with the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (or the blessings of eternal life) seem to affirm this general truism. Oliver Cowdery indicated that Church patriarchs helped in “securing the blessings of the Lord unto [the fatherless] and their posterity.”124 The principle of lineage and inheritance seems to be in play in Cowdery’s words, since posterity are blessed when an individual is blessed.

The rites relative to the patriarchal order in the temple (namely temple marriages and child-to-parent sealings) make the lineages declared in patriarchal blessings real. These rites literally organize and bind men and women, children and parents, together into officially sealed families (both natural and adopted). Through these family ties, priesthood as well as land or kingdoms can be inherited from generation to generation. Indeed, children are literally declared to be heirs, thus making concrete what the patriarch’s blessing only announced.

If entering the patriarchal order in the temple is the priestly order that fulfills the purpose and meaning of the office of patriarch in the Church, then why was/is this office not more generally given to men in the Church as a preparation for the temple? One possible reason is that no one at present can claim an unbroken inheritance of priesthood through their family lineages due to the loss of priesthood from their family in the Great Apostasy. Angelic restoration and ecclesiastical distribution is a necessary step until families can be restored. Additionally, the Church is currently subject to kings, presidents, and rulers of gentile nations. Fully reconstituting a patriarchal government as the Church would make men and women kings and queens having dominion in their own literal kingdoms. Such a structure would not to be tolerated while the Church is subject to other forms of government.

Under gentile overseership and without unbroken covenant links in place to inherit priesthood through ancestors, the Church instead passes priesthood through ecclesiastical channels without reference to family inheritances or actual kingdoms. This will continue until such a time when the familial order can be fully reconstituted and can stand freely on its own politically. Just as the Apostles were told by the resurrected Lord, the kingdom of God in its fullest form will have to wait (see Acts 1:6–7; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 105:9–11). In the meantime, the earlier practice of passing the office of patriarch in the Church from father to son, the lineage-centric blessings of patriarchs today, and the marriages and generational sealings of the patriarchal order in temples all affirm that the Melchizedek priesthood is meant to be an inheritance in a familial order when it is fully restored.

Joseph Smith’s 1835 revelation on priesthood indicates that apostles can appoint patriarchs in the “large branches of the church” (Doctrine and Covenants 107:39). This suggests that patriarchs can exist in those areas where no high priest yet presides. This affirms that patriarchal priesthood is an important part of preparing a kingdom for its eventual fulness under the high priesthood.

Although the simple bifurcation of priesthood between priest and high priest, Aaronic and Melchizedek, has analogues in many ancient and modern religions of the world, Joseph Smith’s mention of a third patriarchal priesthood that exists between the Aaronic priest and Melchizedek high priest also has precedent. For example, in ancient Egypt there appears to be two main levels of priesthood associated with the two main areas of the divine temple complexes: the wꜥb-priest (“pure one”) and the ḥm-nṯr (“servant of God” or “prophet” in later Greek sources) as noted earlier. The “first” or “head” ḥm-nṯr was considered the “high priest” of the god.

However, there was also a little-understood middle priestly order in ancient Egypt with the intriguing patriarchal title jt-nṯr “god’s father.”125 In one source, Bakenkhonsu, a high priest of Amun during the reign of Rameses II, actually lists his ascension through these three orders of priesthood—first as a wꜥb-priest of Amun for four years, then as a jt-nṯr of Amun for twelve years, and finally becoming a third, second, and then first ḥm-nṯr of Amun.126 The patriarchal title “god’s-father” appears to be greater than the priest but less than the high priest, similar to the “patriarchal order” of Joseph Smith’s progression. While this does not fully elucidate the role of patriarchs and the patriarchal order in the Restored Church, it does simply indicate that there is an ancient precedent for an intermediate fatherly order of priesthood that prepares one for the highest.

Conclusions

When Joseph Smith first administered the endowment in Nauvoo on 4 May 1842, he appears to have connected all the orders of the priesthood to that event. Willard Richards recorded the event that was then later edited into the 1838 History of the Church as Joseph Smith’s voice:

I spent the day in the upper part of the Store . . . in Council with [various names], instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of Keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of Melchisedec Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles, by which any one is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings, which have been prepared for the Church of the first born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the Eternal worlds. In this Council was instituted the Ancient order of things for the first time in these last days.127

The italics emphasize that the endowment incorporated all the instructions or “plans” for obtaining the fullness of the priesthood. Specifically, Richards indicated that he received instruction in the Endowment pertaining to the Aaronic priesthood, “and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedec Priesthood.”

Some may want to see Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo endowment as a complete ritual within itself and see temple marriage and the fullness of the priesthood introduced thereafter as independent, perhaps even evolutionary developments. However, a careful reading of the report of the first Nauvoo endowments suggests that the Prophet viewed this rite as providing a map to all the ordinances, covenants, and priestly orders from the Aaronic to the fullness of the Melchizedek order, even if the specific practices of patriarchal marriage and full initiation into Melchizedek order via the temple had yet to be given to the Church.128 In September 1842, Joseph Smith declared relative to the temple, “Now the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us, consists in obtaining the powers of the Holy Priesthood. . . . Herein is glory and honor, and immortality and eternal life” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:11–12).

While it is often the case that the purpose of Elijah’s modern ministry is more simply expressed as the authority by which temple marriages or work for the dead is accomplished, Joseph Smith’s teachings suggest that it should be viewed as something grander and more holistic. Elijah’s role, declared from the very beginning of the Restoration according to Joseph Smith, was to “reveal the priesthood” or, in other words, to complete the priesthood in mortality, making it and all the oaths, covenants, rites, performances, and connections that it administers sure. Elijah’s key is the final seal confirming the Melchizedek high priesthood after the Order of the Son of God with full authority to administer a kingdom of God. Such kingdoms are begun with a foundation laid by apostolic authority (often preceded by the lesser priesthood and assisted by the Seventy), confirmed by elders giving the Holy Ghost, eventually organized into a family of lineal inheritance by patriarchal rites (that the patriarchal office in the Church represents), and then made sure by high priests having the supreme authority to make all of it efficacious in the resurrection and beyond. Joseph Smith’s unfolding of all these portions and degrees together is the restoration of Melchizedek priesthood, with the caveat that the place of women and the Relief Society in the structure outlined above has yet to be addressed.

[Author’s Note: This paper is the culmination of several presentations and drafts I have made on this topic over the years. For example, “The Grand Orders of the Priesthood: Joseph Smith’s August 1843 Discourse on Hebrews 7,” given at the Sidney B. Sperry Symposium, Brigham Young University, October 2002; “The Sacrifice of Isaac: Abraham’s Initiation into the Highest Order of the Priesthood,” given at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and the Religious Studies Center Conference on Genesis 22: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on the Binding of Isaac, Brigham Young University, March 2004; “Orders of the Priesthood Ancient and Modern,” given at the Religion Department Faculty Forum, Brigham Young University, March 2007. I would like to personally thank my colleagues, friends, and research assistants Douglas Maughan, Ronald Bartholomew, Jonn Claybaugh, Richard Moore, Robert Millet, John Welch, David Holland, Tona Hangen, Andrew Ehat, Jeffrey Bradshaw, Stephen Fleming, and Paul Bryner for reading drafts and/or discussing with me over the years many of the ideas presented herein. I would also like to thank my many Institute and BYU students for their feedback on the coherency and logic in how I presented the information. I dedicate this study to my father John S. Thompson Sr. and my sons Jacob, Jared, Hyrum, Joseph, Spencer, and Preston who have taught me in so many ways what it means to honor one’s priesthood.]

John S. Thompson obtained his BA and MA in Ancient Near Eastern Studies (Hebrew Bible) from BYU and UC Berkeley respectively and completed a PhD in Egyptology at the University of Pennsylvania, with a dissertation emphasis on ancient priesthood. He was an employee of the Seminaries & Institutes of Religion for 28 years, most recently as a Coordinator and the Institute Director in the Cambridge, Massachusetts, area. John now researches/writes full-time for Scripture Central. He is married to Stacey Keller from Orem, Utah, and they have nine children and four grandchildren.

1 . Sidney Rigdon, “The Ancient Order of Things,” Messenger and Advocate 1 (September 1835): 183.

2 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards,” 25–26, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/1; “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by James Burgess,” 14, Joseph Smith Papers, joseph
smithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported
-by-james-burgess/1; See also “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/3. In this and all other quotations from original sources, spelling, grammar, and capitalization are retained as in originals.

3 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71.

4 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

5 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74.

6 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74.

7 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 74. The Joseph Smith Papers editors notate “Prest” as having received a strikethrough, but the line in question is not complete and is at an angle more reminiscent of a stray mark than a deliberate strikethrough.

8 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

9 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

10 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

11 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

12 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

13 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries, vol. 20: 1843 July 13–September 17, Levi Richards papers, 1837–1876, MS 1284, Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, catalog.churchof
jesuschrist.org/assets/10d5fe6e-eac4-4528-a8c2-cc6d15b85b32/0/8; published in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University [BYU]; Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 247.

14 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries.

15 . 27 August 1843 entry, Levi Richards diaries.

16 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

17 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

18 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

19 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by William Clayton,” 102, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august
-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1.

20 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Clayton,” 103.

21 . Comparing the various reports, the Melchizedek order received the most attention and appears to be the emphasis of the sermon, possibly explaining why Clayton reported only on it.

22 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 14.

23 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

24 . “Brs. Lyman Wight John Murdock Reynolds Cahoon Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand <of> br. Joseph Smith jr. . . . Brs. Parley P. Pratt Thomas B. Marsh Isaac Morley Edward Partridge Joseph Wakefield Martin Harris Ezra Thayer Ezra Booth, (denied the faith) John Corrill Samuel H. Smith Solomon Hancock Simeon Carter Wheeler Baldwin Jacob Scott (denied the faith), Joseph Smith [Sr.] John Whitmer Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight.” “Minutes, circa 3–4 June 1831,” 4, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-circa-3-4-june-1831/2. See also Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. II,” Ohio Star (Ravenna, OH), 2 October 1831, 3.

25 . “History of Joseph Smith,” Times and Seasons 5 (1 February 1844), 416, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-of-joseph-smith/95. The original manuscript was edited after its publication by Willard Richards to read “the authority of the melechisedec <priesthood> was manifested and <I> conferred, <the high priesthood> for the first time, upon several of the elders.” “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 118, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30
-august-1834/124. B. H. Roberts’s 1902 republication retains the original published version, not the altered manuscript, but he disagrees with the declaration that the Melchizedek priesthood was manifested for the first time at this event (see his footnote in History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, volume I [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1902], 175–76). That the introduction of Joseph Smith’s 1832 History announces its plan to cover the “reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God” is most likely referring to the giving of the high priesthood at this June 1831 event in Kirtland. “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/1.

26 . The 1835 version of a revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that Peter, James, and John bestowed apostleship on Smith and Cowdery: “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 with Peter, and James, and John whom I have sent unto, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry.” 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, Section 50 (Doctrine and Covenants 27:8, 12).

27 . “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction <of> Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck.” “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 18.

28 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27, also 17–18.

29 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27.

30 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37–38.

31 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 5.

32 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

33 . Gregory A. Prince, Having Authority: The Origins and Development of Priesthood During the Ministry of Joseph Smith (Independence, MO: Independence Press, 1993); D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994); Gregory A. Prince, Power from on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995).

34 . See particularly the opening chapter of Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy, 1–38. It should be noted that there is a difference between making alterations to a narrative that clarifies ideas or terminology versus making alterations that change the fundamental nature or history of an event.

35 . “Smith merely kept the essence of what had been called Melchizedek Priesthood, renamed it after the patriarchs, and applied the former term to the new order.” Prince, Power from on High, 40–41.

36 . Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, “The Earliest Accounts of the Restoration of the Priesthood,” in Opening the Heavens, ed. John W. Welch, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 229–46; Larry C. Porter, “The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods,” Ensign, December 1996, 30–47.

37 . Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder (New York: Vintage, 2007), 156–60, 258–66.

38 . J. Spencer Fluhman, “Authority, Power, and the ‘Government of the Church of Christ,’” in Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer, ed. Richard Neitzel Holzapfel and Kent P. Jackson (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2010), 195–232.

39 . Terryl L. Givens, Feeding the Flock: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Church and Praxis (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 105–43; Jonathan A. Stapley, The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 10–33.

40 . Stapley, Power of Godliness, 125–26.

41 . B. H. Roberts wisely noted: “‘Mormonism’ . . . calls for thoughtful disciples who will not be content with merely repeating some of its truths, but will develop its truths; and enlarge it by that development. Not half—not one-hundredth part—not a thousandth part of that which Joseph Smith revealed to the church has yet been unfolded, either to the church or to the world. The work of the expounder has scarcely begun. The Prophet planted by teaching the germ-truths of the great dispensation of the fulness of times. The watering and the weeding is going on, and God is giving the increase, and will give it more abundantly in the future as more intelligent discipleship shall obtain.” B. H. Roberts, “Book of Mormon Translation,” Improvement Era 9, no. 9 (July 1906): 713.

42 . See “Church Organizations, 1831–1833,” Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/back/church-organizations-1831-1833; also William V. Smith, “Early Mormon Priesthood Revelation: Text, Impact, and Evolution,” Dialogue 46, no. 4 (Winter 2013): 13.

43 . “Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-6-april-1837/1.

44 . “Discourse, 5 January 1841, as Reported by William Clayton,” 5, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-5-january-1841-as-reported-by-william-clayton/2. See also “in viewing the church as whole, we may strictly denominate it one priesthood” (“Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487).

45 . William G. Hartley, My Fellow Servants: Essays on the History of Priesthood (Provo, UT: BYU Press, 2010), 3–24; Michael Hubbard MacKay, Prophetic Authority: Democratic Hierarchy and the Mormon Priesthood (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2020); and Michael Hubbard MacKay, “Event or Process? How ‘the Chamber of Old Father Whitmer’ Helps Us Understand Priesthood Restoration,” BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no. 1 (2021): 73–101.

46 . For other studies concerning the Book of Mormon’s impact on the restoration see John W. Welch, “The Book of Mormon as the Keystone of Church Administration,” in A Firm Foundation: Church Organization & Administration, ed. David J. Whittaker and Arnold K. Garr (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2011), 14–57; Gerald E. Smith, Schooling The Prophet: How the Book of Mormon Influenced Joseph Smith and the Early Restoration (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2015).

47 . See, for examples, “Minutes, 19 February 1834,” 37, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-19-february-1834/2; Rigdon, “Ancient Order of Things,” 182–85; “History, 1838–1856, volume C-1 [2 November 1838–31 July 1842],” 1328, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november
-1838-31-july-1842/502; “John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847,” 95, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-whitmer-history
-1831-circa-1847/99.

48 . Too much emphasis on keeping earlier uses of authority and later uses of priesthood completely divided has confounded the data and prevented the natural language relationships of the one to the other from emerging.

49 . “I speak unto you [Oliver Cowdery] even as unto Paul mine apostle for ye are called even with that same calling with which he was called . . . Behold I am Oliver I am an Apostle of Jesus Christ.” “Appendix 3: ‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1, 3, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1. Joseph Smith’s June 1829 revelation also refers to Oliver Cowdery as an apostle (Doctrine and Covenants 18:9). This revelation and another summer 1829 revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 19:8–9) also suggest that David Whitmer and Martin Harris may have received apostolic authority as well, perhaps due to their appointment as part of the Three Witnesses. Brigham Young indicated in a 7 April 1852 discourse that “Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were the first Apostles of this dispensation.” Journal of Discourses, vol. 6 (Liverpool: Asa Calkin, 1859), 320. Heber C. Kimball indicated in an 8 November 1857 discourse that all three witnesses were ordained as apostles in Journal of Discourses, 6:29. Possibly due to the apostolic calling of Joseph Smith and the Three Witnesses, as well as the experience of the Eight Witnesses (twelve men total, though there is no evidence the Eight Witnesses were apostles), the Palmyra Reflector reported that “The number of the Gold Bible Apostles is said to be complete. Jo Smith Jr. is about to assign to each, a mission to the heathen.” “Selected Items,” The Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 23 September 1829, 14. Some April 1830 revelations also refer to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as apostles (Doctrine and Covenants 20:2–3; 21:1). In June 1830, Oliver Cowdery is referred to as “The apostle to the NEPHITES.” The Reflector (Palmyra, NY), 1 June 1830, 28. June 1830 ministerial licenses issued by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as apostles indicate that others were also given apostleship: “A License Liberty Power & Authority Given to John Whitmer signifying & proveing that he is an Apostle of Jesus Christ an Elder of this Church of Christ . . . Signifying that he has been baptized & received into the Church according to the Articles & Covenants of the Church & ordained under the hand of Joseph Smith Jun. <who is an Apostle of our Lord>.” “License for John Whitmer, 9 June 1830,” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/license-for-john-whitmer
-9-june-1830/1. “Those who are the friends and advocates of this wonderful book, state that Mr. Oliver Cowdry has his commission directly from the God of Heaven, and that he has credentials, written and signed by the hand of Jesus Christ, with whom he has personally conversed, and as such, said Cowdry claims that he and his associates are the only persons on earth who are qualified to administer in his name. . . . If these things are true, God has certainly changed his order of commission. When Jesus sent his disciples to preach, he gave them power against all unclean spirits, to cast them out, to heal all manner of diseases, and to raise the dead. But these newly commissioned disciples have totally failed thus far in their attempts to heal, and as far as can be ascertained, their prophecys have also failed.” A Lover of Truth, “The Book of Mormon,” Painesville Telegraph (Painesville, OH), 7 December, 1830. “In conclusion, I remark, that if the above observations are correct, we are bound to consider the Apostles of this pretended new Revelation, either as wild Fanatics, or (what is more probable) as designing Villains, unless they can convince mankind of the truth of their mission from Heaven—either by imitating Moses, by dividing seas, and feeding their followers with Manna—or like our blessed Saviour, by healing the sick, restoring lost limbs, or raising the dead; or else by performing other miracles equally stupendous.” H., “Letter to the Editor,” Observer and Telegraph (Hudson, OH), 30 December 1830.

50 . An 1835 expansion of a revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 27 mentions that Peter, James, and John bestowed apostleship on Smith and Cowdery: “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 with Peter, and James, and John whom I have sent unto, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry” (1835 Doctrine & Covenants, Section 50; Doctrine and Covenants 27:8, 12). Such later expansions in the historical record are viewed by many historians as an evolving story thus rewriting of history, but it can also reflect the claim that such details were not included in earlier sources on purpose due to persecution: “we were forced to keep < secret > these things entirely secret in our own bosoms, viz: the circumstances of our having been baptized and having received this aaronic priesthood. And this on account of < owing to > a spirit of persecution who which had been < already > manifested itself in the neighborhood, for some time previous. We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time and this too by professors of religion . . .” “History, circa June–October 1839 [Draft 1],” 1, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-october-1839-draft-1/1.

51 . “The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called John the Baptist in the new Testament, and that he acted under the direction <of> Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the priesthood of Melchisedeck.” “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 18.

52 . The introductory material of the 1832 History indicates that it will outline, among other things, “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels.” “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1. An 1833 blessing Joseph Smith gave to Oliver Cowdery was expanded and recorded in 1835 to indicate that Oliver was ordained to the lesser priesthood “by the hand of the angel in the bush . . . and after receive[d] the holy priesthood under the hands of they . . . who received it under the hand of the Messiah.” “Appendix 5, Document 6. Blessing to Oliver Cowdery, 2 October 1835,” 12, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-5-document-6-blessing
-to-oliver-cowdery-2-october-1835/1. A third 1833 source indicates that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen and conversed with “Jesus Christ and the Apostles” but no specific reference to priesthood is mentioned in this context. Reverend Richmond Taggart to Reverend Jonathon Goings, Cleveland, Ohio, March 2, 1833, in Jonathon Goings Collection, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, NY, printed in John W. Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens, 2nd ed. (Provo, UT: BYU Press; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2017), 251.

53 . “This promise was made by the angel [singular] while in company with President Smith, at the time they recievd the office of the lesser priesthood.” “History, 1834–1836,” 17, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org
/paper-summary/history-1834-1836/19. That the plural angels restoring holy priesthood in the 1832 history could be referencing all angels that had restored any priesthood, including the lesser, to that point is a possible reading.

54 . “Minutes and Discourses, 27 February 1835, as Reported by William E. McLellin,” 3, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary
/minutes-and-discourses-27-february-1835-as-reported-by-william-e
-mclellin/1.

55 . “Minutes and Blessings, 28 February–1 March 1835,” 164, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-blessings-28
-february-1-march-1835/1.

56 . “Journal, 1835–1836,” 188–89, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-1835-1836/191.

57 . “Discourse, 2 May 1835, as Reported by William E. McLellin–A,” 187, Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis added, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary
/discourse-2-may-1835-as-reported-by-william-e-mclellin-a/1.

58 . Ronald K. Esplin and Sharon E. Nielsen, “The Record of the Twelve, 1835: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ Call and 1835 Mission,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 1 (2012): 13.

59 . “Minutes, Discourse, and Blessings, 14–15 February 1835,” 151, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-discourse
-and-blessings-14-15-february-1835/5?highlight=keys.

60 . “Record of the Twelve, 14 February–28 August 1835,” 4, (entry for 27 February 1835), Joseph Smith papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper
-summary/record-of-the-twelve-14-february-28-august-1835/8.

61 . See also Richard E. Bennett, “The Circumference of the Apostleship,” in Firm Foundation, 59–81.

62 . “‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1. See also, Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, 7 September 1834, Messenger and Advocate 1 (October 1834): 14–16.

63 . For baptisms prior to the organization of the Church, e.g., that of Peter and David Whitmer and Samuel and Hyrum Smith, see Lyman D. Platt, “Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Baptized by September 26, 1830,” Nauvoo Journal 1 (1989): 20–22, ensignpeakfoundation.org/wp
-content/uploads/2013/05/NJ1_Platt4.pdf.

64 . Rigdon, “Ancient Order of Things,” 184.

65 . “Revelation Book 1,” 55, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/39.

66 . “Commandments were given to Joseph Smith, jun. who was called of God and ordained an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church, and also to Oliver Cowdery, who was also called of God an apostle of Jesus Christ an elder of the church . . . we elders of the church have heard and bear record to the words of the glorious Majesty on high.” “Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20],” 4, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/articles-and-covenants-circa-april-1830-dc-20/1; also “Revelation Book 1,” 53.

67 . David Whitmer indicates that he and others were ordained elders in the summer of 1829. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, MO: 1887), 32. Whitmer also indicates that before his own 1829 ordination that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ordained each other as elders “in the Church of Christ,” but the Church was not formally organized until 1830. Since there is no corroborating evidence to Whitmer’s claim that he was ordained as an elder in the summer of 1829 and since his claim that Joseph and Oliver were ordained elders in the Church of Christ prior to the summer of 1829 appears to be wrong, Whitmer appears to be conflating some things that occurred in 1829-1830. Most likely, Whitmer is confusing 1829 ordinations to apostleship (discussed in footnote 49) with being ordained as an elder. As will be seen, the offices of apostles and elders are very closely related so the conflation is understandable. Although an 1829 source speaks of church members partaking “oft . . . of bread & wine” and that “The Elder or Priest shall minister it…” and anticipates the office of elder as part of “build[ing] up [God’s] church,” (“‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1), no one need assume that the office of elder or the Church itself existed prior to its formal organization on 6 April 1830. Prince, Quinn, and Cannon use the late source of Whitmer to suggest that elders were first ordained in 1829, but this conflicts with other sources and muddies the waters. The Whitmer source, as it stands, should be dismissed in favor of the more contemporary report by Joseph Smith regarding the establishment of the office of elder.

68 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27, also 17–18.

69 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 26–27.

70 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37.

71 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37–38.

72 . “Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20],” 4.

73 . “Doctrine and Covenants, 1835,” 79, [D&C 20:41, 43], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835/87.

74 . While James’s status as an elder in the Church is likely, he is also explicitly called an apostle by Paul (Galatians 1:19).

75 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 27.

76 . “Discourse, 6 April 1837,” 487.

77 . “License for John Whitmer, 9 June 1830,” 1.

78 . A clearer understanding of this may have prevented Sidney Rigdon from attempting to claim the Presidency for himself.

79 . But one could argue that the formation of the Twelve did not mean they were necessarily given keys at that time to act independently if the presiding high priesthood for the Church dissolved.

80 . “Revelation, 11 November 1831–B [D&C 107 partial],” 122, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-11-november-1831
-b-dc-107-partial/1. The space within “Priest hood” is in the original.

81 . For example, the Egyptians, Hittites, and Assyrians all had state-sponsored cults in which the king was usually seen as the presiding high priest, though he might delegate away some of those duties by necessity. A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 98–100. Ada Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag Winter, 2007), 28, 222, 380. Aylward M. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” in Gods, Priests and Men: Studies in the Religion of Pharaonic Egypt by Aylward M. Blackman, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (London: Kegan Paul, 1998), 117, 127. The king as high priest would serve as the supreme religious authority over the whole kingdom, but other high priests may be the supreme authority in more limited geographies within a kingdom such as temple precincts.

82 . “Brs. Lyman Wight John Murdock Reynolds Cahoon Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand <of> br. Joseph Smith jr. . . . Brs. Parley P. Pratt Thomas B. Marsh Isaac Morley Edward Partridge Joseph Wakefield Martin Harris Ezra Thayer Ezra Booth, (denied the faith) John Corrill Samuel H. Smith Solomon Hancock Simeon Carter Wheeler Baldwin Jacob Scott, (denied the faith) Joseph Smith [Sr.] John Whitmer Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight.” “Minutes, circa 3–4 June 1831,” 4.

83 . “History of Joseph Smith,” 416. See note 25 for additional discussion on this source and its history

84 . Ezra Booth, “Mormonism—No. II,” 3.

85 . “John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, 1839,” 18, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/john-corrill-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-christ-of-latter-day-saints
-1839/16.

86 . Parley P. Pratt, The Autobiography of Parley Parker Pratt, One of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Embracing His Life, Ministry and Travels, with Extracts, in Prose and Verse, from His Miscellaneous Writings, ed. P. Pratt, Jr. (New York: Russell Brothers, 1874), 72.

87 . Though ancient Assyrian temples and priesthoods do not present an obvious hierarchy, Egyptian and Hittite temples and priesthoods had clear hierarchies, though all of these submitted to the king as the de facto high priest. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 106. Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood, 438. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127–38.

88 . My thanks to Matthew Roper for bringing this insight to my attention.

89 . Raymond O. Faulkner, A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, modernized by Boris Jegorović (Frome and London: Butler & Tanner, 2017), 209, archive.org/details/pj1425.f3/page/n225/mode/1up. Walter E. Crum, A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1939), 691. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127.

90 . “History, circa Summer 1832,” 1.

91 . “History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 5. Compare Doctrine and Covenants 2.

92 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73–74.

93 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

94 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

95 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

96 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

97 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26.

98 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 71–72.

99 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

100 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 72.

101 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin Richards,” 26. Joseph Smith’s remark appears to indirectly address a passage in Hebrews, the text of his sermon, wherein the reader is told that Abraham entered into the Melchizedek order via a covenantal “oath” from God after Abraham had “patiently endured” (Hebrew 6:15–20). Connecting the sacrifice of Isaac to Abraham’s initiation into the highest priestly order greatly expands the meaning of that story already pregnant with deep philosophical implications. I addressed this unique teaching of Joseph Smith in my presentation “The Sacrifice of Isaac: Abraham’s Initiation into the Highest Order of the Priesthood,” at the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies and the Religious Studies Center Conference Genesis 22: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on the Binding of Isaac, Brigham Young University, March 2004. The oath that God swore to Abraham after the binding of Isaac is recorded in Genesis 22:15–18.

102 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” 73.

103 . For further discussion of this, see John W. Welch, “The Temple in the Book of Mormon: The Temples at the Cities of Nephi, Zarahemla, and Bountiful,” in Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1994), 365–67.

104 . Ruling “under his father” suggests a family order wherein Melchizedek’s father was also a king having a greater dominion, like the kingdom of the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon wherein Lamoni was a king ruling over a principality in his father’s greater kingdom (see Alma 13:18).

105 . “Old Testament Revision 1,” 15, [Moses 6:64–68], Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-1/17#
historical-intro. The enigmatic phrase Joseph Smith recorded earlier—“and thus all things were confirmed unto Adam, by an holy ordinance”—probably relates, but it is not explicitly connected to the priesthood in the immediate context (“unto Adam by an holy ordinance” appears in Old Testament Revision 2 [Moses 5:59]). “Old Testament Revision 2,” 14, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/old-testament-revision-2/18.

106 . “Old Testament Revision 1,” 33 [JST Genesis 14:27].

107 . For further discussion on the relationship of Enoch’s call to temple ascent, see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw and David J. Larsen, In God’s Image and Likeness 2: Enoch, Noah, and the Tower of Babel (Orem, UT: Interpreter Foundation; Salt Lake City: Eborn Books, 2014), 33–41.

108 . This is similar to Jesus’s three temptations that appear to be in an ascending nature (e.g., from the wilderness, to the temple pinnacle, and then to a high mountain according to Matthew) as a prelude to his coming forth “in the power of the spirit” (Luke 4:14). On the relation of Moses 1 to the temple generally see Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, In God’s Image and Likeness: Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Book of Moses (Salt Lake City: Eborn Publishing, 2010).

109 . “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by William Clayton,” 17, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as
-reported-by-william-clayton/7.

110 . One of the earliest revelations mentioning priesthood ordination by the “laying on of hands” is in the Book of Mormon, published in March 1830. It indicates that Alma “ordained priests and elders, by laying on his hands according to the order of God, to preside and watch over the church” (Alma 6:1). The Book of Mormon also indicates that Jesus “laid his hands upon” the disciples he chose from the Nephites giving them authority to give the Holy Ghost to others (Moroni 2). These disciples are said to have ordained other priests and teachers in the following manner: “After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon them, and said, In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest; (or if he be a teacher,) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. And after this manner did they ordain priests and teachers, according to the gifts and callings of God unto men” (Moroni 3:1–4). Oliver Cowdery’s “Articles of the Church of Christ” (June 1829) appears to use the pre-published Moroni passage above to indicate how priests and teachers should be ordained in his day: “Ye shall pray unto the Father in my name & then shall ye lay your hands upon them.” “‘Articles of the Church of Christ,’ June 1829,” 1. Joseph Smith’s circa April 1830 revelation, known as the “Articles and Covenants” of the Church, mentions the “ordaining” of deacons, teachers, priests, and elders. It does not, however, explicitly describe the manner of these ordinations. The opening lines of this revelation do indicate that Oliver Cowdery was “ordained under his hand,” suggesting that ordaining in the later passage may also indicate the laying on of hands, but this is not definitive (Doctrine and Covenants 20:3). Joseph Smith’s 1832 History begins with a summary of major events that had transpired to date, including a mention of priesthood restoration by angels: “the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—and the ordinencs” (“History, circa Summer 1832,” 1). However, only later sources indicate the mechanics by which this priesthood authority was first conferred, namely “by the hand” or “under the hands” of angels or that an angel “laid his hands upon” the recipients. See Oliver Cowdery, Messenger and Advocate 1:15–16; and Oliver Cowdery’s blessing from Joseph Smith Sr. recorded in Patriarchal Blessing Book 1, [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 12, accessible as Appendix 5, Document 6. Blessing to Oliver Cowdery, 2 October 1835, 12, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmith
papers.org/paper-summary/appendix-5-document-6-blessing-to-oliver
-cowdery-2-october-1835/1. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were ordained in February 1835 when the three witnesses “laid their hands upon each ones head and prayed separately.” “Minute Book 1,” 149, Joseph Smith papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minute-book-1/153. The 1838 History of the Church has Joseph Smith stating that on 6 April 1830, the day the Church was organized, “I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery and ordained him an Elder of the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.’ after which he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church” (“History, 1838–1856, vol. A-1,” 37). Again, these and other records of the Restoration mention the “laying on of hands” as the means for bestowing priesthood along with its various offices, and it remains the common practice to the present day. This practice arguably has biblical precedents wherein Moses put some of his “honor” upon Joshua when “he laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:18–23; cf. Deuteronomy 34:9) and when Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13:3) and Timothy (1 Timothy 4:14) were called to serve. While these biblical passages mention the laying on of hands in relationship to their being authorized to serve, the passages do not explicitly mention conferring “priesthood.”

111 . The Isaiah text specifies a temple setting before God’s throne, accompanied by angelic beings and smoke, presumably from the altar of incense. Isaiah’s mouth is cleansed by a coal from the altar fire. Jeremiah receives instruction concerning the pre-mortal life, has his mouth touched by the finger of God (perhaps echoing Isaiah’s purging), and sees “a rod of an almond tree” (Jeremiah 1:4–11). The later point suggests a temple setting since Aaron’s almond rod was kept in the Holy of Holies (Numbers 17:8, 10; Hebrews 9:4) The disappearance of the rod and manna in Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 8:9) is said by biblical scholars to be a Deuteronomist scribal tradition whereas the priestly tradition claims that the rod and pot of manna were there. Ezekiel is also depicted in the temple before God’s throne, his mouth being filled with the words of God as he eats a book.

112 . If the Law of Moses only permitted sons from the house of Levi to enter the temple as typically assumed, then by what authority do the prophets enter the temple as the ancient texts so often depict since not all of them were Levites? The notion that prophets are in the holiest parts of the temple is evidence for the existence of a different or greater priesthood among the prophets than that held by the priests and Levites. This distinction in the temple between priest and prophet is also seen in the Egyptian religion where the wꜥb (lit. “pure one”, this term is translated into later Judeo-Christian tradition as “priest”) seem to have access only to the courtyard of the temple, while the ḥm-nṯr (lit. “servant of god,” or “prophet”) are given access to the sanctuary of the temple and see the god. See John Gee, “Prophets, Initiation and the Egyptian Temple,” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 31 (2004): 97–107.

113 . Due to the similarities of this account with the confrontation between Jehovah and Satan with regard to Job, one might resolve the theological problems surrounding the “deal” made between Satan and the Lord by viewing that dialogue as being part of a temple drama as well—itself being an echo of the confrontation in heaven between Lucifer and Jehovah during the pre-mortal council of the gods—the council where the Lord foreordained these prophets as they are often told (see Jeremiah 1:5; Abraham 3:23).

114 . For a good overview of the issues and sources, see Margaret Barker, “The Secret Tradition,” in The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 1–33.

115 . The Catholic tradition emphasizes the latter, whereas LDS tradition typically emphasizes the former. Both are correct in their general understanding of what constitutes a saint.

116 . “Minutes and Blessings, 21 February 1835,” 160, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-and-blessings-21-february
-1835/7. However, Oliver seems to suggest an ordination by the laying on of hands by God, which could differ from a temple ordination.

117 . For difficulties of precisely dating this revelation see Steven C. Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2008), 563–64; Doctrine and Covenants 107, note 2.

118 . Scholars have noted that the earliest sources regarding priesthood in the Bible have Aaron, the high priest, performing the rites inside the temple, whereas priests primarily function in the courtyard (see, for example, Exodus 30:7–8).

119 . “When we give the brethren their endowments, we . . . confer upon them the Melchisedec Priesthood; but I expect to see the day when we shall . . . say to a company of brethren you can go and receive the [endowment] ordinances pertaining to the Aaronic order of Priesthood, and then you can go into the world and preach the Gospel, or do something that will prove whether you will honor that Priesthood before you receive more. Now we pass them through the [temple] ordinances of both Priesthoods in one day.” G. D. Watt and J. V. Long, eds., Journal of Discourses, vol. 10 (Liverpool: Daniel H. Wells, 1865), 309. Quoted in John A. Widstoe, Discourses of Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1973), 396.

120 . “Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Burgess,” 15.

121 . See Oliver Cowdery’s report of Joseph Smith Sr. being ordained as “president and patriarch” in Patriarchal Blessing Book 1 [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 9, published in H. Michael Marquardt, comp., Early Patriarchal Blessings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Smith-Pettit Foundation, 2007), 3, and compare to the minutes of Joseph Smith Sr.’s ordination to the “Presidency” in “Account of Meetings, Revelation, and Blessing, 5–6 December 1834,” 20, Joseph Smith Papers, josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/account-of-meetings-revelation-and-blessing-5-6-december-1834/4.

122 . “[Joseph Smith Sr.] ordai[ned] his sons Hiram to be a Patriarch, and pronounced great blessing upon all his children before he died.” Vilate Murray Kimball letter to Heber C. Kimball, 11 October 1840, Vilate M. Kimball letters, 1840, Church History Catalog, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; cf. Doctrine and Covenants 124:91.

123 . On priesthood as inheritance, see John S. Thompson, “‘Being of that Lineage’: Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022): 97–146, journal.interpreterfoundation.org/being-of-that-lineage-generational
-curses-and-inheritance-in-the-book-of-abraham/.

124 . Patriarchal Blessing Book 1 [Dec. 1834–ca. Spring 1868], Church History Library, 8, published in Marquardt, Early Patriarchal Blessings, 3.

125 . Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), 555; Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford: Oxford University Press) I:47*; Faulkner, Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 32. Blackman, “Priest, Priesthood (Egyptian),” 127–38.

126 . Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions: Historical and Biographical, vol. 3 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), 298. My thanks to John Gee for pointing out this source to me many years ago.

127 . “History, 1838–1856, volume C-1,” 1328, emphasis added. For a publication of the draft sheet of this passage in the hand of Willard Richards, see Andrew F. Ehat, “Who Shall Ascend into the Hill of the Lord?” Sesquicentennial Reflections of a Sacred Day: 4 May 1842,” in Temples of the Ancient World, 50–51.

128 . Joseph Smith was “attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of Keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of Melchisedec Priesthood, . . . and all those plans and principles, by which any one is enabled to secure the fulness of those blessings, which have been prepared for the Church of the first born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the Eternal worlds. In this Council was instituted the Ancient order of things for the first time in these last days” (“History, 1838–1856, volume C-1,” 1328, emphasis added). Not unlike initiatory ordinances that occur prior to an Endowment today, ordinances such as marriage that occur after an Endowment can still be part of “all those plans and principles” of the Endowment itself.