|
Latter Day Saints -
"Where Did You Get Your Authority?"
by Hal Hougey
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer is indebted to many persons for information and ideas used in compiling this
material. Special acknowledgment is given to Otis Gatewood, who wrote a tract some
years ago, titled "Latter Day Saints, Where Did You Get Your Authority?" The ideas
presented in that tract for the most part have been used here, although much additional
material is also included.
A. The Jews Asked Jesus and the Apostles This Question - Matt.
21:23-27; Acts 4:7-12
- Jesus and the Apostles did not need, nor did they produce,
credentials from the priesthood to show their authority. So
neither will we.
- LDS have the same misconception that the Jews had: that
authority passes from one to another through some ceremony
or ordination. The very fact that the priesthood questioned
their authority shows that Jesus and the Apostles completely
ignored those ceremonies or ordinations. The Jews were
wrong, and since the LDS believe as the Jews did, they are
wrong, too.
- When Jesus was questioned about his authority, He examined
the questioners to see if they were competent judges. Therefore,
we shall do the same: We ask, "The authority of Joseph
Smith, whence was it? From heaven, or of men?"
B. Was There a Total Apostasy, Making a Restoration of Authority
Necessary?
- LDS believe that there was a total apostasy, and therefore a
complete loss of authority to baptize, etc. This, they believe,
made necessary the restoration of authority (or priesthood) by
a heavenly messenger to Joseph Smith.
- That there was a general apostasy, we agree. That it was
universal, we deny.
- Mormons contradict Christ and say the gates of hades did
prevail against the church - Matt. 16:18
- God receives glory in the church "throughout all ages"
Ephesians 3:21
- Daniel said the kingdom would never be destroyed
Daniel 2:44
- We have received a kingdom that cannot be moved or
shaken - Hebrews 12:28
- There were 7,000 faithful in Elijah's day, but he did not
know who or where they were (I Kings 19:13-18).
Likewise, there were people faithful to God throughout all
ages, though we do not know their names and addresses.
- 3. Joseph Smith's angel usurped authority, since Mormon doctrine
teaches that men with authority have always been
present on the earth.
- The Apostle John and three Nephite disciples are still
tarrying on the earth until Christ returns (D&C 7 U,R;
3 Nephi 28:6-32 U; 13:17-44 R; pp. 510-512). These
all have authority; therefore, the authority has never
been lost from the earth, and a restoration through an
angel is unnecessary.
- "As long as there are apostles on the earth, true to their
callings, the true church will exist on the face of the earth."
(Letter to the writer by Mormon Apostle Joseph Fielding
Smith, April 17,1956.)
- LDS would brand as a heretic any person who claimed to
have received the priesthood from an angel. They say God
does not work that way; that if the authority is on the
earth, God will not give it through an angel. If this is so,
the angel who gave the priesthood to Joseph Smith and
Oliver Cowdery was not from God, since John and the
three Nephites are still on the earth!
C. Where Did Joseph Smith Get His Authority?
"While we (Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery) were
thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger
from heaven descended in a cloud of light and
having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us saying: 'Upon
you my fellow servants in the name of Messiah, I confer
the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the
ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance,
and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins;
and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the
sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in
righteousness.' He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the
power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost,
but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he
commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions
that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards
he should baptize me. Accordingly we went and were
baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized
me-after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained
him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his
hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood-for
so we were commanded." (PGP 56:68-71 U; Joseph Smith
Tells His Own Story)
LDS believe: One who is not baptized is unsaved, does not
have the remission of sins, and is not in the kingdom (D&C
84:74U; 83:12 R; 3 Nephi 1 1:33-34, 38 U; 5:34-35, 40 R; PGP
Moses 6:52ff). LDS believe an unbaptized person may not
baptize others, nor may the priesthood be conferred by him, or
upon him. One must have the priesthood before he can confer
it on others, or baptize others.
- The angel conferred the priesthood on unbaptized persons,
and is therefore anathema - Galatians I : 8
- Since Joseph and Oliver were unbaptized, the priesthood was
conferred on men who were unsaved and still in their sins.
- Why did not the angel baptize Joseph and Oliver first? Surely
he had the authority, since he could confer the priesthood
He was John the Baptist, who certainly could baptize them,
if anyone could. Heavenly beings may administer baptism
(PGP Moses 6:64-66 U).
- Instead of baptizing Joseph as he should have done, the
heavenly messenger then told them to baptize each other-a
thing LDS will ridicule in any other church.
- Joseph, who had never been baptized, baptized Oliver, so
Oliver's baptism was invalid.
- Then Oliver baptized Joseph, but since Oliver's baptism
was invalid, so was Joseph's.
- Joseph, improperly baptized, conferred the Aaronic priesthood
on Oliver, contrary to Mormon teaching.
- Then Oliver, ordained improperly, conferred the Aaronic
priesthood on Joseph; therefore, Joseph's ordination was
worthless.
- The heavenly messenger conferred the Priesthood of Aaron
on Joseph and Oliver before they baptized each other. Yet,
Joseph and Oliver conferred the Aaronic priesthood on each
other after they baptized each other. Therefore, the Priesthood
of Aaron conferred by the angel must have been
washed away with their sins when they were baptized!
- Since Joseph and Oliver conferred the Aaronic priesthood
on each other after their baptism, they must have known
that something was faulty about the priesthood the angel
conferred on them. Therefore, they did not have the priesthood
before they baptized each other, and this is still
another reason for objecting to their baptizing each other.
- Since Joseph and Oliver had to confer the priesthood on
each other after they were baptized, they must have lost it,
and therefore had no authority to confer it on each
other!
- Neither Joseph nor Oliver had the priesthood after they were
baptized, but the heavenly messenger did have it. Therefore,
the angel should have conferred it on them again after their
baptism!
This story sounds like two children playing that they have a
million dollars. Each says he will give the other a million, and
they go through the acts of giving the money, but neither has
any money when they finish, because neither had any money
at the start.
This absurd and contradictory account could have been completely
avoided if Joseph Smith had simply said that the angel
first baptized them, and then conferred the priesthood on them.
And this is what he would have said if the story were true.
Why, then, did he give us the account we have? It seems likely
that the part about the angel is simply an embellishment later
added to what actually occurred. Joseph and Oliver were about
to start a church. In order to get the people to listen to their
claims, it would be advisable for them to be baptized and
ordained. Since they did not want to go to any existing church
for these credentials, they proceeded to give them to each
other. Read the account, leaving out the part about the angel,
and one has a believable narrative of what two men might do to
create credentials for themselves as ministers of God.
There is some evidence supporting this suggestion in the first
published account of the restoration of the priesthood by the
angel, in the Messenger and Advocate of October 1834, pages
15-16. In this account Oliver Cowdery tells us that "the angel
of God came down clothed with glory" and delivered to himself
and Joseph Smith the authority to administer the ordinances
of the gospel. Cowdery says,
". . .we received under his hand the holy priesthood, as he
said, 'upon you my fellow servants, in the name of
Messiah I confer this priesthood and this authority, which
shall remain on earth, that the sons of Levi may yet offer
an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!' "
This account differs from the better known account, which was
first published eight years later in 1842, in that the angel is
unidentified, there is no mention of Aaron, there is no mention
of Smith and Cowdery baptizing and ordaining each other, and
the wording of the angel's statement is significantly different,
especially in regard to the meaning of the last clause concerning
the sons of Levi, which the reader will note by comparing the
two. It would appear from this, that the visitation by the angel
was first regarded as a separate event, and the baptism and ordination
of the two men by each other distinct from it. The two
were joined in the 1842 account, however, with the contradictory
result we have noted above.
D. Latter-day Saints Have No Authority, Since They Are Not
Called of God "As Was Aaron" - Hebrews 5:4
1. Qualifications for the Aaronic Priesthood:
- Limited to Aaron and his sons only Ex 28:1; 29:9; 29:44;
Num 18:1-7; Lev 6:19-23; Ex 28:43; Neh 7:61-65
(1) The Levites helped - Num 3:5-6, 9-10; Heb 7:5
(2) Punishment for non-Levites who tried to become
priests:
(a) Dathan and Abiram Num 16: 1-35
(b) King Uzziah - 2 Chron 26:1-3, 16-21
(c) Jeroboam's priests- I Kings 13:33-34
(3) But Joseph Smith, of English stock, was not a Jew, a
Levite, or a son of Aaron
(4) The Aaronic priesthood was hereditary, but not so in
the LDS church
- Physical qualifications - Lev 21:16-23
(1) LDS ignore these qualifications today
(2) Joseph Smith had a leg operation when he was young,
in which part of the bone was removed. He was,
therefore, physically disqualified to be a priest (Lucy
Mack Smith: Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith
and His Progenitors for Many Generations Liverpool:
1853, p. 65)
- Other qualifications which LDS ignore: Lev 21:1-15:
Num 4:35
2. How Were the Aaronic Priests Ordained in the Bible?
- Exodus 29; Lev. 8
- Were washed with water v. 4
- Were dressed in the priestly robes - v. 5-6 (These robes
were for "glory and beauty''-Ex 28:2-but the holy
garments of the LDS are neither glorious nor beautiful.)
- Were anointed with oilv. 7
- Laid hands on the head of a bullock - v. 10
- The bullock was killed, and its blood was poured out at the
altar, while the fat and the kidneys were placed on the
altar, and the rest was burned outside the camp, as a sin-
offering v. 11-14
- Laid hands on the head of a ram V.I 5
- The ram was killed, its blood was sprinkled about the
altar, and the body was offered as a burnt offering on the
altar-v. 16-18
- Laid hands on the head of another ram v. 19
- This second ram was killed, and some of the blood was put
on the tip of the right ear, right thumb, and right great toe
of Aaron and his sons, while the rest of the blood was
sprinkled upon the altar v. 20
- Some of the blood on the altar and some anointing oil was
then sprinkled on the priests and their garments - v. 21
- Were given parts of the ram and three kinds of bread, and
these were waved as a wave offering, then they were burnt
on the altar - v. 22-25
- The breast of the ram was given to the one who ordained
them v. 26
- The shoulder was given to them v. 27
- They were to eat of the ram and the bread, but no one else
was allowed to do so-v. 30-33
- For the next seven days, one bullock and two lambs were
offered daily v. 35-44
3. How Do LDS Ordain to the Aaronic Priesthood?
- They lay hands on the priests being ordained and speak
the words that are specified by the LDS church to confer
the priesthood
- Nowhere in the Bible account do we find hands laid on
the priests hands were laid only on the bullock and
the rams!
- The LDS ignore completely the Biblical method of ordain-
ing Aaronic priests
- It will not do to say these ordinances do not apply today;
if the Aaronic priesthood exists today, the method for
ordaining priests into that priesthood apply today
- LDS often apply Hebrews 5:4, ". . .as was Aaron," to refer
to the ceremony by which one is ordained to the priesthood,
but they do not follow that ceremony in any way
E. If Mormons Ever Had Authority, It Has Long Since Been Lost
1. The Authority May Be Lost:
- Byapostasy- D&C85:11-12U
- By unrighteous living - D&C 121:37 U;J of D 21:284 U
- By neglect of duty - John A. Widtsoe, Priesthood and
Church Government, p. 67 U
- By excommunication - D&C 85: 1 1-12 U
- By hypocrisy - D&C 121:37 U
- Bypride- D&C 121:37 U
- By vain ambition - D&C 121:37 U
- By exercising unrighteous dominion over others D&C
121:37U
2. No Mormon Can Know If He Has the Authority
- ". . .the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected
with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven
cannot be controlled nor handled only upon principles of
righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is
true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to
gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control
or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children
of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the
heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is
grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood
or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he
is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute
the saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by
sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of
almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as
they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous
dominion." (D&C 121:36-39 U) Note:
(1) One loses the authority when he exercises any degree
of unrighteous dominion
(2) This will happen "ere he is aware"
(3) Almost all men, as soon as they get authority, will
immediately exercise unrighteous dominion
In view of these statements, how can any LDS be confident
of the authority he claims to have, or thinks he may have
received from another?
- In many communities where Mormons are the large
majority of the population, it would mean the end of a
man's livelihood to admit publicly he no longer believed
in Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. How many
apostates may there have been, and are now, who pretend
to believe in Mormonism, and perform baptisms, etc., in
order to protect their financial security or social standing?
Thus, all who have been baptized or ordained by such men
are deluded into believing they are in good standing.
- In order for one to be sure of his authority, he would have
to know the hearts of every person in the chain of
succession back to Joseph Smith. Yet, none can know the
hearts of all men. One broken link in the chain of succession
separates all below that break from their source of
authority.
- To insist that the heart of the man who baptizes or ordains
must be right, in order for the baptism or ordination to be
valid, is to make God unjust. For, although a man is
responding sincerely from his heart to do God's will, he
cannot know if he is right before God since he cannot
know the heart of the one who baptized or ordained him.
It is not the spiritual condition of the one performing the
ordinance, but the heart of the one responding to God's
will that is important!
3. There Are Several Recorded Instances in Mormon History
in Which the Authority Was Lost
- In the beginning, after the angel conferred the priesthood
on Smith and Cowdery, they conferred it on each other
again after their baptism. They obviously thought they
needed to be re-ordained, so must have believed that it
was lost.
- They lost it when coming west with Brigham Young. They
entered Salt Lake Valley on July 24, 1847, and "On the
6th of August, 1847, the twelve were baptized. This we
considered a privilege and a duty. . . We soon repaired to
the water, and President Young went down into the water
and baptized all his brethren of the twelve present. He
then confirmed us and sealed upon us our apostleship and
all the keys, powers, and blessings belonging to that office
. . . Brother Heber C. Kimball baptized and confirmed
President Brigham Young. During the same evening the
twelve went to City Creek, and Heber C. Young baptized
fifty-five members of the camp, for the remission of sins
. , . On the next day (Sunday, Aug. 8th) the whole camp
of Israel renewed their covenants before the Lord by
baptism" (Life of Brigham Young, p. 180. See also Church
Chronology, p. 31; Joseph Fielding Smith: Doctrines of
Salvation, II., p. 333). Note that these re-baptisms were
"for the remission of sins." This means Brigham Young
and the others had sinned, and thus apostatized. Instead
of rebaptizing each other, the authority should have been
restored by an angel. If an angel was not needed here, why
was one needed to restore authority to Joseph Smith?
- All LDS who entered Salt Lake Valley were required to be
rebaptized for a number of years: "After the arrival of the
Pioneers in the Salt Lake Valley, and subsequently for a
considerable period, all those who entered the valley were
baptized anew at the request of President Brigham Young"
(Joseph Fielding Smith: Doctrines of Salvation, II., p.
333. See also Temple Lot Case, p. 341, and discourse by
Apostle Orson Pratt in Journal of Discourses, XVIII., p.
160).
- The authority must have been lost again during the Mormon
reformation of 1856-1857 when rebaptism was
carried out. "A general reformation took place throughout
the Church, most of the Saints renewing their covenants
by baptism" (Church Chronology, p. 55). "After this,
the church had another reformation, and under that we
were baptized the second time and were baptized for the
same thing. You can call it what you please; but suppose
it was for the remission of sins. I do not know whether we
had got out of Christ then or not. . . I do not remember
that I was baptized into Christ any more than three times"
(Testimony of Joseph C. Kingsbury in Temple Lot Case,
p. 341). "February 4.A reformation meeting was held
in No. 42 Islington, Liverpool, England, and on the following
day the presiding brethren of the British Mission,
including Apostles 0. Pratt and E. T. Benson, renewed
their covenants by baptism" (Church Chronology, p. 53).
- It was lost in 1875. On July 17, 1875, "President B.
Young, his Counselors and others renewed their covenants
by baptism. This example was subsequently followed by
the Saints generally" (Church Chronology, p. 92).
- Rebaptism is no longer practiced by the LDS
- It was apparently abandoned in 1898, according to
testimony of August W. Lundstrom in the Reed
Smoot investigation: "[My point] was in regard to
the discontinuance of rebaptizing, which previously
had been customary, when cases came up and rebaptizing
was requested by parties; and at that time we
received instructions not to rebaptize any more"
(Reed Smoot Case, II., p. 159).
- Yet, Brigham Young claimed it had come by revelation:
"At this time came a revelation, that the Saints
could be baptized and re-baptized when they chose,
and then that we could be baptized for our dear
friends" (Journal of Discourses, XVIII., p. 241).
- In spite of this, Joseph Fielding Smith, Mormon
church historian and member of the First Presidency,
wrote: "It is unnecessary, however, to rebaptize
persons merely as a renewal of their covenants
every time they transgress in order that they may
obtain forgiveness, for this would greatly cheapen
this sacred ordinance and weaken its effectiveness.
One baptism by water for the remission of sins should
be enough. . ." (Doctrines of Salvation, II., p. 335).
- It was lost again when President Wilford Woodruff
apostatized by trading polygamy (an everlasting covenant
- D&C 132) for statehood in 1890.
- It was lost again when the ordinances of the church were
changed by the removal of the Lectures on Faith from the
Doctrine and Covenants. These lectures had been canonized
as a part of D&C in 1880.
- It was lost again when President Heber J. Grant changed
the method of conferring the priesthood in 1921. Under
his direction, officers were ordained before the priesthood
was conferred. In 1957 President David 0. McKay changed
the method of conferring the priesthood back to the
manner in which it was done prior to 1921. What about all
the priests ordained during those 36 years? Since they
were not properly ordained, the baptisms, grave dedications,
baby blessings, sacraments, proxy baptisms, endowment
work, marriages (including celestial marriages) they
performed were invalid.
- It was lost again on June 9, 1978, when President Spencer
Kimball, with the approval of the general authorities, gave
the priesthood to the blacks. Brigham Young said:
". . .the first presidency, the twelve, the high council, the
bishoprick, and all the elders of Israel, suppose we summon
them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to
mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall
come in with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings
God has given to us. On that very day and hour we should
do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom
and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent
to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to
destruction, . . -we should receive the curse which has been
placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered
with the children of Adam who are heirs to the
Priesthood until that curse be removed." (Brigham Young
Addresses, February 5, 1852, Ms d. 1234, Box 48, Folder
3, LDS Historical Dept., Salt Lake City, Utah)
- Finally, in March 1981, the discovery of the original text
of the Blessing that Joseph Smith, Junior, gave to his son,
Joseph Smith, III, on January 17, 1844, revealed the true
successor to the presidency:
"Blessed of the Lord is my son Joseph, who is called the
third, . . .that the promises made to the fathers might be
fulfilled, even that the anointing of the progenitor shall be
upon the head of my son, and his seed after him, from
generation to generation. For he shall be my successor to
the Presidency of the High Priesthood: a Seer, and a Revelator,
and a Prophet, unto the Church; which appointment
belongeth to him by blessing, and also by right.
"Verily, thus saith the Lord: if he abides in me, his days
shall be lengthened upon the earth, but, if he abides not in
me, I, the Lord, will receive him, in an instant, unto
myself...."
Since Joseph Smith, III, was President of the Reorganized
church for 54 years and lived till the age of 82, it is clear
that he must have continued to abide in God. This can
mean only that the Utah church under the leadership of
Brigham Young and his successors is an apostate church,
and never had the authority in the first place!
4. In Their Practice, Mormons Show They Believe One without
Authority Can Baptize and. Ordain
- In the Book of Mormon Nephi was given authority to
baptize (3 Nephi 11:19-28) though he was not baptized
until later (3 Nephi 19:11-13). Before he and the other
disciples were baptized they were ordained by Christ and
given the power to give the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 18:36-37).
All this is directly contrary to what Mormons insist others
should do.
- The case of Smith and Cowdery baptizing and ordaining
each other shows it.
- The case of Brigham Young and Heber Kimball rebaptizing
and reordaining each other, along with all the other
Mormons in Utah Valley in 1847 shows it.
- The rebaptisms of 1856-1857 and 1875 show it.
- They deny this in theory, but have practiced it. "What you
do speaks so loudly I cannot hear what you say."
F. The Mormon Priesthood Is an Assumption - Not a Restoration
1. There Is No Biblical Authority for the Aaronic Priesthood
Today
- The Aaronic priesthood was part of the religious system
under the Law of Moses. This law and its ordinances came
to an end when Christ died on the cross Gal. 3:19, 23-25;
Col. 2:14-17; Heb. 10:1-10.
- Christ's will or testament came into effect after his death
- Heb. 9:15-17
- There was a change in the priesthood; the Aaronic (Levitical)
priesthood was taken away - Heb. 7: 1 1-12
- Even Christ could not be a priest ofAaron because he was
of the wrong tribe Heb. 7:13-14. (How can non-Jewish
LDS qualify if Christ could not qualify?
- If Christ were on earth he would not be a priest at all -
Heb. 8:4
- There is no example of Aaronic priests in the church anywhere
in the New Testament, amazing if such priesthood
existed in the church. Rather, the New Testament teaches
the universal priesthood of all believers I Peter 2:5, 9
2. There Is No Biblical Authority for a Melchizedek Priesthood
- In addition to the Aaronic priesthood discussed above,
LDS believe also in a High Priesthood, superior to the
Aaronic Priesthood, which they call the Melchizedek
Priesthood (D&C 107: 1-14), after Melchizedek, a priest of
God, mentioned in Genesis 14: 17-20. Melchizedek's priesthood
is mentioned in only three places in the Bible, so all
the Bible tells us about this priesthood must be found in
these passages: Gen. 14:17-20; Psalm 110:4; Hebrews
4:14 to 8:4.
- The only Melchizedek priest in all the Old Testament was
Melchizedek himself. In the New Testament there is only
one who is said to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek
-Christ. The Bible gives no hint of a Melchizedek priesthood
of many thousands of priests.
- Christ was appointed a high priest after the order of
Melchizedek by God (Heb. 5:5-6, 10), not by an existing
Melchizedek priesthood, nor by a ceremony of the laying
on of hands.
- According to the Bible, Melchizedek belonged to no priestly
succession and had no priestly parentage, nor does the
record mention his birth or death. It simply says he "was
a priest of the Most High God." In these things he
resembles the Son of God, who likewise came from no
priestly lineage or succession, and who lives forever (Gen.
14:17; Heb. 7:3, 6, 15-16). But Mormons emphasize a
priestly succession, and their genealogy is duly recorded.
- The Aaronic priesthood was inadequate to bring salvation
to men, so it was necessary to change the priesthood, and
"another priest (singular) to arise after the order of Meichizedek,
rather than one named after the order ofAaron."
Christ was not of the Levitical tribe from which the Aaronic
priests came, but of the tribe of Judah, which was not a
priestly lineage (Heb. 7: 1 1-14). This passage makes it clear
that Christ is the only priest after the order ofMelchizedek.
- Aaronic high priests had successors, for they died; Christ
has no successor as a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek
because He lives forever (Heb. 7:23-25).
- The word "order" used in Heb. 5:6, 10, etc., is a translation
of the Greek word taxin, which may mean ( I ) succession;
(2) orderly manner; (3) position; or (4) nature,
quality, manner, condition or appearance. The Greek
lexicons apply the last meaning to this word as used in
Hebrews 5-7. That is, Christ was a priest after the nature,
quality, manner, condition, or appearance ofMelchizedek,
rather than one of a succession. This is the obvious meaning
in view of Heb. 7:3, which points out the similar nature of
Christ and Melchizedek; and Heb. 7:15, which says
Christ arose in the "similitude" (KJV) or "likeness" (RSV)
of Melchizedek.
- The "high priests" in the Bible refer to the chief priests of
the Aaronic priesthood, named for Aaron who was the first
high priest (Heb. 5:1-4), and not to members of a Melchizedek priesthood.
- There was normally one high priest at a time. Aaron
was the first (Heb. 5:1-4); Eleazar his son succeeded
him (Num. 20:25-29); Phineas succeeded Eleazar, and
the high priesthood was to follow this family line
(Num. 25:10-13).
- In the Old Testament, when a man committed man-
slaughter he could go to a city of refuge for safety.
When the High Priest died, he could then return to
his home in safety (Num. 35:25, 28; Joshua 20:6).
If there were thousands of high priests, this rule
would be nonsense. Whose death would be meant?
High priests would be dying regularly, so why would
such cities be set up, since one would hardly have to
spend any time there? This law shows that there was
only one high priest at a time.
- LDS ask about Luke 3:2 which says Annas and
Caiaphas were high priests. Actually, the word for
high priest in this verse is singular, not plural, in the
original Greek, thus showing that there was properly
only one. Annas had been the high priest, but he had
displeased the Romans, and Valerius Gratus deposed
him, setting up another in his place. At the time
mentioned in Luke 3:2 Caiaphas, the son-in-law of
Annas, was the high priest under the Roman set-up.
The Jews looked upon Annas as the true high priest,
but were forced to recognize Caiaphas as the Roman
appointee. The two men apparently cooperated, thus
the statement in Luke 3:2. See also John I 1:49 and
Acts 4:6. Note that even two high priests is a long
way from the Mormon practice of having thousands
of high priests.
- Every high priest must have a sacrifice (Heb. 8:3).
Jesus offered his blood. What sacrifice do LDS high
priests offer?
- Every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices
(Heb. 5:1). Yet, when there is remission of sins,
there is no more sacrifice (Heb. 10:17-18). Christ has
made the sacrifice which took away sins (Heb. 10: 12).
Therefore, there are no high priests on earth today.
3. Evidence Is Totally Lacking to Show That There Was Any
Restoration of the High Priesthood in 1829
- LDS believe the Aaronic priesthood was restored to Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery on May 15, 1829, and that
Peter, James and John restored the Melchizedek priesthood
to Joseph Smith sometime during the following six weeks.
Both priesthoods were supposedly restored almost a year
before the LDS church was organized. The alleged
restoration of the Aaronic priesthood has been discussed
earlier, so the following discussion will be limited largely to
the alleged restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood.
- The first printed compilation of alleged revelations received
by Joseph Smith was published in 1833 under the title,
Book of Commandments. This book contained 65 revelations.
In 1835 the second edition of these revelations was
printed under the title, Doctrine and Covenants, with
additional revelations included. The revelations of Book
of Commandments are included in the first 72 sections of
the 1835 edition of D&C, and in the first 64 sections of
modern editions, though later revelations are interspersed.
For convenience, references to sections in these revelations
will be given as follows: 28BC, 50DC, 27U, 26R means the
same revelation can be found in Book of Commandments,
chapter 28; 1835 edition of D&C, section 50; and in sections
27 and 26, respectively, of the modern Utah and
Reorganized editions of D&C. It should be noted here
that D&C 2U and 13U are not included in either Book of
Commandments or the 1835 edition of D&C.)
- The organization of the LDS church with its various offices
is given in 24BC, 2DC, 20U, 17R, in a revelation dated
April 1830. This organization consisted of apostles, elders,
priests, teachers, deacons, and members. As originally
given, it did not include presiding elders, bishops, high
councils or high councilors, high priests or high priesthoods,
or presidents. These offices were fraudulently added to the
revelation when the 1835 edition ofD&C was published, in
verses 16-17DC, 65-67U, 16-17R.
- The references to the restoration of the two priesthoods in
28BC, 50DC, 27U, 26R, did not appear in the Book of
Commandments at all. More than 400 words were added
to this revelation in 1835, in verses 2-3DC, 5-18U, 2-3R.
Again, a revelation was vitally changed after 1833 to make
it appear that the restoration of the priesthoods was known
to the church in August 1830, thus deceiving modern
readers.
- The references to high priests, counselors, and high council
in 44BC, 13DC, 42U, 42R, were all added in 1835. Here
again a revelation was falsified to make it appear that in
February 1831 when the revelation was received, these
offices were established in the LDS church.
- The fact is, none of the following offices are mentioned
anywhere in the Book of Commandments, published in
1833: high priests, high priesthood, high council, high
councilors, seventies, Melchizedek priesthood, patriarch,
president, first presidency. Likewise, Melchizedek's name
nowhere appears. Peter, James and John are not mentioned
in the same connection in the Book of Commandments.
All these things are fabrications added later to
make them appear to have been part of the original
collection of revelations. This could be done without too
much embarrassment, since most of the copies of the Book
of Commandments were destroyed when a mob set fire to
the printing office where they were printed.
- David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of
Mormon, wrote: "You have changed the revelations from
the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the
Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother
Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the
church. You have changed the revelations to support the
error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to
support the error of a President of the high priesthood,
high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to
support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ
in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon" (An
Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Missouri,
1887, p. 49).
- David Whitmer further stated: "The next grievous error
which crept into the church was in ordaining high priests in
June, 1831. This error was introduced at the instigation of
Sydney Rigdon. The office of high priests was never spoken
of, and never thought of being established in the church
until Rigdon came in. Remember that we had been
preaching from August, 1829, until June, 1831almost
two yearsand had baptized about 2,000 members into the
Church of Christ, and had not one high priest. During
1829, several times we were told by Brother Joseph that
an elder was the highest office in the church. . . In Kirtland,
Ohio, in 1831, Rigdon would expound the Old Testament
scriptures of the Bible and Book of Mormon (in his way)
to Joseph, concerning the priesthood, high priests, etc., and
would persuade Brother Joseph to inquire of the Lord
about this doctrine and that doctrine, and of course a
revelation would always come just as they desired it.
Rigdon finally persuaded Brother Joseph to believe that
the high priests which had such great power in ancient
times, should be in the Church of Christ to-day. He had
Brother Joseph inquire of the Lord about it, and they
received an answer according to their erring desires"
(An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 35. See also pp.
64-65).
- Joseph Smith wrote a detailed journal history, giving many
details of daily occurrences. However, it nowhere gives an
account of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood.
B. H. Roberts, Mormon apostle and historian, says, "there
is no definite account of the event in the history of the
Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals"
(History of the Church, 1., p. 40 footnote). If it had
actually occurred it is most difficult to believe that an event
of such importance would have gone unrecorded.
- Joseph Smith III, son of the Prophet, wrote: "There is no
historical evidence of such an event [ ordaining of Joseph
and Oliver by Peter, James and John]. Nor is there any
evidence that Peter, James, and John were present, either
when the instruction was given to ordain or when the
ordination actually took place. . . It is not safe then to
write historically that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery
were ever ordained literally under the hands of Peter,
James, and John. He who does so writes recklessly and
without sufficient evidence upon which to base his con-
clusion" (History of the Reorganized Church, 1., pp.
64-65).
- LaMar Petersen has written: "There seems to be no support
for the historicity of the Restoration of the Priesthood in
journals, diaries, letters, nor printed matter prior to October,
1834" (Problems in Mormon Text, p. 8). References
to the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood were
published after this date, even though earlier dates were
assigned to them, or they were made to appear to be a part
of earlier writings.
- Slips are eventually bound to occur when one tries to
change history. One of these appears in Joseph Smith's
statement referring to a conference at Kirtland, Ohio, on
June 3-6, 1831: "The authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood
was manifested and conferred for the first time upon
several of the Elders" (History of the Church, 1., pp.
17 5-176). This contradicts Doctrine and Covenants (3:3DC,
107:7U, 104:3R) which says, "The office of an elder
comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek." (This revelation
was given in 1835, therefore not in the Book of
Commandments.) However, it is in agreement with Whitmer,
who says they had ordained elders as early as August
1829, but that high priests were not introduced until June
1831 (An Address to All Believers in Christ, pp. 32, 35).
- On the basis of the historical evidence given above, it is a
logical and reasonable conclusion that there was no restoration
of the Melchizedek or high priesthood in 1829, and
that there was no such priesthood in the LDS church until
June 1831.
- In view of all this, how weak is the claim of LDS today to
have the high priesthood: "No one may officiate in any
ordinance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints unless he has been ordained to the particular order
or office of Priesthood, by those possessing the requisite
authority. Thus, no man receives the Priesthood except
under the hands of one who holds that Priesthood himself;
that one must have obtained it from others previously
commissioned; and so every bearer of the Priesthood today
can trace his authority to the hands of Joseph Smith the
Prophet, who received his ordination under the hands of
the Apostles Peter, James and John; and they had been
ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ" (James E. Talmage,
Articles of Faith, chapter 10).
- All Christians are priests, made so by Christ through His
blood (Rev. 1:5-6). This priesthood has no relationship
to the Aaronic priesthood of the Old Testament. It is the
"royal priesthood" under Christ our Great High Priest
(I Peter 2:9-10; Hebrews 4:14).
G. What About the Laying on of Hands?
1. LDS believe Aaron and his sons were ordained to the priesthood
by a ceremony of laying hands on their heads, that
Christ ordained the apostles in the same way, and that the
priesthoods were thus restored to Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery in like manner in 1829. They further believe that
all church officers are ordained by the laying on of hands,
and that the authority is thus passed from one to another.
Without this authority, one does not have the right to baptize,
ordain, bless, engage in endowment work, etc.
2. There was no laying on of hands on Aaron and his sons to
ordain them to the priesthood, as shown above. On the other
hand, LDS ignore the ceremony by which Aaron and his sons
were ordained to the priesthood (Exodus 29).
3. There is no record in the New Testament of Christ laying
hands on any of the apostles for any reason whatever!
4. The word "ordain," used several times in the KJV of the
Bible, neither means nor implies the laying on of hands.
"The powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1).
Does this mean that God lays hands on civil rulers? "Jeroboam
ordained a feast" (I Kings 12:32). Did he lay his hands on the
salad, the entree, the dessert? In point of fact, there are several
different words in the Hebrew and Greek translated by "ordain,"
and none of them mean or imply laying on of hands.
They may properly be translated by such words as make,
appoint, constitute, assign, arrange, decree, destine, prescribe,
dispose, or place. Thus, John 15:16 simply means that
Christ chose and appointed the twelve-laying on of hands is
neither mentioned nor implied in this verse.
5. Two general principles underlie the Biblical teaching of lay ing
on of hands:
- Laying on of hands symbolized the impartation or transference
of something; it always involved the person or persons
who imparted, and the recipients of whatever was imparted.
Examples of some things thus imparted are:
(1) Blessing - Gen. 48:13-14
(2) Sin-Ex. 29:10, 15, 19; Lev. 16:21-22
(3) Healing - Mark 7:32; Acts 9:12, 17; Mark 6:5
(4) Authority or responsibility to do a work - Acts 6:1-6;
Acts 13:3
(5) Spiritual gifts - Acts 8:14-19
- When the Lord directly authorized (gave authority to)
someone to do something, laying on of hands is never prac-
ticed. Because of His complete authority, the Lord's
command is all that is needed to authorize men to do what-
ever He wills. One no more needs laying on of hands to
obey the Lord's command to baptize, than to obey His
command to be merciful or loving. Thus, Aaron and his
sons, and the apostles of Christ, chosen by the Lord Him-
self, did not have hands laid on them.
6. The word "apostle" means "one sent out with a commission. "
The apostles of Christ, appointed directly by Him, did not
have hands laid on them before they were sent out to do His
work. But the church may also send men with a commission,
and such men may properly called apostles also. They are
apostles of the church which appointed them. Thus, Paul
and Barnabas were appointed by the Antioch church to
preach the Gospel as their apostles. They were appointed by
the laying on of hands-Acts 13:3. Thus, Paul and Barnabas
were apostles of the Antioch church (Acts 14:14), and Paul
was also an apostle of Christ (Acts 26:16-18). Hands were
laid on Paul when he was sent out from the church, but Christ
did not lay hands on him when he appointed him His apostle.
In the New Testament, hands were laid on men to appoint
them to work in the church, when the church chose them
(Acts 6:1-6).
H. The True New Testament Teaching Concerning Authority
"And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven
and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you
always, to the close of the age. ' "
-Matthew 28:18-20 RSV
- Thus, without the laying on of hands, Jesus authorized (gave
authority to) the apostles to baptize and teach.
Having all
authority, He needed only to command them to give them
the authority to do what He commanded.
- They were to teach those whom they baptized to do all that
He told them to do. In other words, it was an endless process
-the apostles were to baptize others, teach them to do the
Lord's will, and they in turn were to baptize still others, and
teach them also to do the Lord's will. As Paul told Timothy,
"what you have heard from me before many witnesses
entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others
also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Jesus did not say to ordain others to do
what he commanded, but to teach them to do those things.
- The apostles are still teaching us today when we read the
New Testament. When we read that Jesus commanded
them to baptize and teach others to do likewise, we have all
the authority needed to baptize. To refuse to teach and
baptize is to reject the authority of Christ.
- It is not necessary for the Gospel to be communicated by
personal contact. When we read the word in the New
Testament and believe and obey it, we are doing God's will
even if there are no other Christians within hundreds of
miles. When the good seed (the word) is planted in good and
honest hearts, and yields fruit, God is pleased. If we reject
God's will, he is displeased (See Matt. 13: 1-9, 18-23).
- May anyone baptize?
- God commanded it, did He not? It is as logical to ask if
anyone may forgive, or be kind, or love others, or be
honest. If it is God's will, we should do it. The beliefs or
sincerity of the one administering the baptism are not
crucialit is rather the response of the honest and penitent
heart to the will of God. If God would refuse to respect
such submission from the heart because of hypocrisy in
another's heart, about which the one being baptized cannot
know, then God would be unjust! Naturally, one may prefer
a spiritually developed Christian to administer the baptism,
if possible, but this is not essential.
- The Bible shows that the lack of faithfulness and sincerity
in another person will not affect one who is responding to
God's will:
(1) Matt. 23:2 - Hypocrites, but their preaching is to be
followed.
(2) Philippians 1:15-18 Hypocrites preaching, but it is
still valid.
(3) Romans 6:16-18 Paul says if we yield to God, we
are his servants. No, says Mormonism, that is not
necessarily true; if you yield yourselves to God in
baptism (verses 3-4), but the one baptizing you is an
apostate or hypocrite, you are the servants of sin, not
of God.
- LDS will accept baptism at the hand of unbaptized persons
in some circumstances. The case of Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery baptizing each other while an angel who had the
authority stood by watching is an example of this.
- Jesus taught the true doctrine of authority in the Great
Commission Matt. 28: 18-20. Anythingdifferent from this is a
different and therefore false gospel, and is anathema, whether
it purports to come from an apostle, prophet, or angel from
heaven (Gal. 1:6-9).
- When asked about his power or authority for healing the lame
man. Peter made no attempt to produce credentials from the
priesthood, nor did he refer to an ordination by the laying on
of hands. Rather, he pointed to Jesus as the only source of
power and salvation (Acts 4:7-12)
1. A True Restoration of the Gospel
In 2 Kings 22 we find Israel in apostasy. One day an
apostate priest found the Law of the Lord where it had been
lost and forgotten in the temple. It was read to the people and
obeyed. Thus, a restoration was brought about. It did not
require a visitation by angels to restore authority.
A restoration can be brought about today in the same way
by reading and obeying the teachings of Christ and his apostles
as taught in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God; when it
teaches something we have authority from God to obey it
without having to receive authority from angels or men. If you
learn you should be honest, do you have to go to some church
official for the authority to be honest? Certainly not. Likewise,
when the Lord in His word teaches us to be baptized and to
baptize others, we have the authority to do so, from the word
itself.
Let us restore in our own lives the will of God as it is
revealed in the Bible. Let us leave the quicksand foundation of
false revelations and false authority. Jesus Christ alone can save
uswe must trust in Him and in Him alone! Read Acts 2:36-42
to see how men became disciples of Christ in the beginning.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gatewood, Otis: Latter Day Saints, Where Did You Get Your Authority?
World Vision Publishing Company: Nashville, 1944.
History of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 4 vols.
Herald House: Independence, Missouri, 1952.
Jensen, Andrew: Church Chronology. (Bound with Jensen, Historical Record,
Vol. 5.) Andrew Jensen: Salt Lake City, 1886.
Jensen, Andrew: Church Chronology. Deseret News: Salt Lake City, 1899.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. XVIII, by Brigham Young and others. Liverpool,
1877.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. XXI, by John Taylor and others. Liverpool, 1881.
Petersen, LaMar: Problems in Mormon Text. Pacific Publishing Company:
Concord, California, 1969.
Roberts, B. H., Editor: History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints, 7 vols. Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, 1953.
Smith, Joseph: Book of Commandments. W. W. Phelps & Co.: Zion (Indepen-
dence, Missouri), 1833. Reprinted by Wilford C. Wood, 1962.
Smith, Joseph: Book of Mormon. E. B. Grandin: Palmyra, New York, 1830.
Smith, Joseph: Book of Mormon. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints: Independence, Missouri, 1951.
Smith, Joseph: Book of Mormon. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints: Salt Lake City, 1950.
Smith, Joseph: Doctrine and Covenants. F. G. Williams & Co.: Kirtland, Ohio,
1835.
Smith, Joseph: Doctrine and Covenants. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints: Salt Lake City, 1952.
Smith, Joseph: Doctrine and Covenants. Herald Publishing House: Independence,
Missouri, 1954.
Smith, Joseph: Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story. (There have been a number
of editions of this pamphlet, published by both the Utah church and the
Reorganized church.)
Smith, Joseph: Pearl of Great Price. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints: Salt Lake City, 1952.
Smith, Joseph Fielding: Doctrines of Salvation, II. Bookcraft, Inc.: Salt Lake
City, 1955.
Smith, Lucy Mack: Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith and His Progenitors
for Many Generations. OrsonPratt: Liverpool, 1853.
Talmage, James E.: Articles of Faith. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints: Salt Lake City, 1940.
"Temple Lot Case" United States Circuit Court (8th Circuit). . . The Reor-
ganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, complainant, vs.
the Church of Christ at Independence, Missouri. . . Complainant's abstract
of pleading and evidence. Herald Publishing House: Lamoni, Iowa, 1893.
(Reprinted ca. 1967 by Modern Microfilm Company, Salt Lake City.)
Thayer, Joseph Henry: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. American
Book Company: New York, n. d.
Whitmer, David: An Address to All Believers in Christ. David Whitmer: Richmond,
Missouri, 1887. Reprinted by Pacific Publishing Company, Concord,
California, 1970.
Widtsoe, John A.: Priesthood and Church Government. Bookcraft, Inc.: Salt
Lake City.
More About The LDS Priesthood
|