An Invented Restoration of the Priesthood?

Last updated on: February 2, 2013 at 9:22 pm by William Hamblin

An Invented Restoration of the Priesthood? 2013-02-02T21:22:13-07:00 William Hamblin

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(Revised 4 Feb 2013)

It is a common anti-Mormon assertion that Joseph Smith invented stories about the restoration of the priesthood in 1834, falsely claiming that the angelic John the Baptist, and later Peter, James and John, restored the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. (See, for example, G. Palmer, An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, (Signature, 2002), 215-234. See list of reviews here.)

There are, in fact, a number of pre-1834 sources that allude to the restoration of the priesthood, which I have quoted here.

But another serious problem faces the anti-Mormon claim that Joseph invented stories of angelic ordination in 1834 because he was “facing a credibility crisis that threatened the church’s survival” in Kirtland (Palmer, 227). If this were true, if Joseph brazenly made up tales of angelic restoration of priesthood to dupe his faltering followers, why didn’t he simply claim that he was ordained to those priesthood powers by angels in 1834? Since he’s making it all up according to the anti-Mormons, why wouldn’t he simply say that he received angelic priesthood in 1834 instead of 1829? Why complicate his already false claims with additional complicated layers of duplicity? And why claim two priesthoods? Wouldn’t one priesthood do if Joseph was really making up the story? And why not simply claim that Jesus himself gave Joseph the priesthood? Why do you need John the Baptist and Peter, James and John as intermediaries?

The other aspect of this problem for anti-Mormons is that if JS were simply inventing the story in 1834, why didn’t he provide a specific date for the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood? Remember, he is really just making it all up according to the anti-Mormons. So why not make up a date to go with the false story? Why leave it vague? Paradoxically, the very vagueness of the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood is evidence of the authenticity of the claim, since if he were simply making it up in 1834, he could easily invent a specific date for the alleged restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood. He could even have simply said that it occurred a few hours after the restoration of the Aaronic priesthood, if nothing else. Inventing a detailed and specific story would have been just as easy for Joseph Smith as inventing a vague story.

(Thanks to Mark Jasinski for some suggestions.)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 2, 2013

Online D&C resources from LDS.org

Next Post

February 2, 2013 Nibley blogs from beyond the grave!

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Ancient Studies Atheism Bible bibliography Book of Abraham Book of Mormon Book of Moses Christianity Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Deseret News Column Doctrine and Covenants Documentary Hypothesis Genesis Haram al-Sharif Historicity History Islam Israelite Religion Judaism LDS Mormon Studies Mormonism Mormons Movies Noah Penteteuch Photography Religion Temple Temple Mount Temples Third Temple Movements Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 February 2014 October 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Multitudes of locusts came in waves—the cutting, swarming, hopping, and destroying locusts. What did this plague foreshadow?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A famine God's wrath The day of the Lord An invasion