D&C 106-108 Quotes and Notes

D&C 106 Directions to Warren A. Cowdery

About 8 months before this revelation was received, the Prophet Joseph Smith was on a mission in New York in March of 1834. It was at this time that Joseph established the Freedom, New York branch. Joseph Smith documented that on “Sunday, March 9.—We preached in a school house, and had great attention. We found a few disciples who were firm in the faith; and, after meeting found many believing and could hardly get away from them, and appointed a meeting in Freedom for Monday the 10th, and stayed at Mr. Warren A. Cowdery’s, where we were blessed with a full enjoyment of temporal and spiritual blessings, even all we needed, or were worthy to receive.”^[1]Smith, History of the Church, 2:42.

The Prophet’s companion on this journey was Parley P. Pratt, who described this experience: “President Joseph Smith and myself journeyed together. We had a pleasant and prosperous mission among the churches, and some very interesting times in preaching to the public. We visited Freedom, Catteraugus County, N.Y.; tarried over Sunday, and preached several discourses, to which the people listened with great interest; we were kindly and hospitably entertained among them. We baptized a young man named Heman Hyde; his parents were Presbyterians, and his mother, on account of the strength of her traditions, thought that we were wrong, and told me afterwards that she would much rather have followed him to an earthly grave than to have seen him baptized.

“Soon afterwards, however, herself, her husband, and the rest of the family, with some thirty or forty others, were all baptized and organized into a branch of the Church—called the Freedom branch—from which nucleus the light spread and souls were gathered into the fold in all the regions round. Thus mightily grew the word of God, or the seed sown by that extraordinary personage, the Prophet and Seer of the nineteenth century.”^[2]Autobiography, 89.

Who was Warren Cowdery?

From Susan Easton Black^[3]See: Susan Easton Black, Who’s who in the Doctrine and Covenants, Deseret Book, 1997, p. 77-79. we have the following:

Birth: 17 (possibly 5) October 1788, Poultney, Rutland County, Vermont. Son of William Cowdery and Rebecca Fuller.

Death: 23 February 1851, Kirtland, Lake County, Ohio.

Warren Cowdery, a successful farmer, physician, and apothecary entrepreneur in Freedom, New York, seemed less inclined to new religious leanings than other contemporaries. However, when he received some of the Book of Mormon proof sheets from his younger brother Oliver Cowdery, he perused them with faith and belief.^[4]See autobiography of William Hyde, typescript, p. 6, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. He entered the waters of baptism in late 1831, and by 1834 was called by the Lord to preside over the Church in his local community:

It is my will that my servant Warren A. Cowdery should be appointed and ordained a presiding high priest over my church, in the land of Freedom and the regions round about; And should preach my everlasting gospel, and lift up his voice and warn the people, not only in his own place, but in the adjoining counties; And devote his whole time to this high and holy calling, which I now give unto him, seeking diligently the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, and all things necessary shall be added thereunto; for the laborer is worthy of his hire (D&C 106:1-3).

The Lord promised that if Warren would humble himself and continue to be faithful, “I have prepared a crown for him in the mansions of my Father” (D&C 106:8).

Warren’s position as high priest over the Freedom branch led him to boast in his priesthood power. In September 1835 he wrote a letter that was “derogatory to the character and teaching” of the Twelve,^[5]Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-51), 2:283. and the Twelve countered with “a charge against Dr Cowdery for his unchristian conduct.”^[6] Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, comp. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), p. 137. In March 1836, after Warren had moved from New York to Kirtland, the Prophet met with him and others in the upper room of the printing office regarding the Twelves’ charges. Warren admitted that he was wrong and “was willing to publish that they [the Twelve] were not in the fault.”^[7]Oliver Cowdery diary, 5 March 1836, as cited in Joseph Smith, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, comp. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), p. 664 n. 198. His public apology was accepted.

Possessing many of the same talents as his brother Oliver, Warren acted as a scribe and an assistant recorder for the Church from 1836 to 1837 and served on the Kirtland high council in May 1837. He kept Kirtland council minutes, made entries in the Prophet’s diary, penned the historical record of the Church from 1835 to 1836, and scribed patriarchal blessings. He assisted in writing the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple in 1836 (see D&C 109). He was an agent or manager for the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon in the printing office and book bindery.^[8]See Dean C. Jessee, “The Writings of Joseph Smith’s History,” BYU Studies 11 (Summer 1971): 449. He succeeded his brother in serving as editor of the Messenger and Advocate until February 1837. Warren edited the paper through its final edition in September 1837.^[9]During these years of heightened Church activity Warren kept a journal, which is located in the Church Historical Department in Salt Lake City, Utah.

He did not remain with the Church after 1838. His disaffection with Church leaders corresponded with that of his brother Oliver. Warren continued to reside in Kirtland, and in the Ohio federal census of 1850 he was listed as living with his wife and six children and possessing assets of seven hundred dollars.^[10]See the Ohio federal census 1850. He died in 1851 at the age of sixty-two.

D&C 106.5 Children of light… that day shall not overtake you as a thief

Paul warned the Thessalonian Saints, “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief” (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4). Those who have treasured up the Lord’s word shall not be deceived (Joseph Smith-Matthew 1:37) but will know of the nearness of the Lord’s coming. The prophesied signs will indicate the generation in which the Son of Man will appear in glory.

The Saints ought to look forward to the Savior’s return and be anxiously engaged in preparing the world for that great event. If the Saints will prepare for the Lord’s return, sleep will flee from their eyes as they wait in eager anticipation for the coming of the Bridegroom. While the wicked slumber, the children of light will be alert and aware that with each passing year the time of the Lord’s promised return draws closer.

Commenting on Paul’s warning to the Thessalonians, the Prophet Joseph Smith explained: “It is not the design of the Almighty to come upon the earth and crush it and grind it to powder, but he will reveal it to His servants the prophets. Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, &c.; and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds; then will appear one grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world do? They will say it is a planet, a comet, &c. But the Son of Man will come as the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning cometh out of the east.”^[11]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 286-87.

Notwithstanding the vanity of his heart – D&C 106.7

“Here is another instance of the Seeric gift of the Prophet while under divine inspiration. Warren A. Cowdery, owing to this weakness, on one occasion, in a letter to the Presidency of the Church, accused Thomas B. Marsh and others of the Twelve of having neglected to teach the Saints their duty to contribute means for the building of the Temple. But he was honest enough to acknowledge his error publicly, as soon as it was pointed out to him.”^[12]History of the Church, Vol. II., p. 374. See: Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 690.

D&C 107 A Revelation on Priesthood

From McConkie and Ostler we have the following background information:

Doctrine and Covenants 107 weaves together revelations received at different times. The primary date is 28 March 1835, when the first fifty-two verses and verses 56-58 were given in response to the request of the newly ordained apostles for instruction relative to their office and calling. Verses 53-55 were extracted from the blessing given to Joseph Smith Sr. when he was ordained Church patriarch by the Prophet on 18 December 1833.^[13]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 38-40. Verses 59 to 100 (with the exception of verses 61, 70, 73, 76-77, 88, 90, 93-98) were given in November 1831.^[14]Kirtland Record Book. The verses in the latter part of the revelation not received in 1831 were added by the Prophet when he prepared this section for inclusion in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

On 14 February 1835 the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized for the first time in this dispensation. The Twelve were chosen, according to revelation, by the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon (D&C 18). The Prophet met periodically with the Twelve after their organization to instruct them. On 12 March 1835 the Prophet called the Twelve on their first mission to the eastern states and the Atlantic Coast, instructing them to hold meetings with various branches of the Church along the way. In preparation for their departure, the Twelve met again on the afternoon of 28 March. Orson Hyde and William E. McLellin, who recorded the minutes of that meeting, observed that “on reviewing our past course we are satisfied, and feel to confess also, that we have not realized the importance of our calling to that degree that we ought; we have been light- minded and vain, and in many things have done wrong. For all these things we have asked the forgiveness of our heavenly Father; and wherein we have grieved or wounded the feelings of the Presidency, we ask their forgiveness. The time when we are about to separate is near; and when we shall meet again, God only knows; we therefore feel to ask of him whom we have acknowledged to be our Prophet and Seer, that he inquire of God for us, and obtain a revelation, (if consistent) that we may look upon it when we are separated, that our hearts may be comforted. Our worthiness has not inspired us to make this request, but our unworthiness. We have unitedly asked God our heavenly Father to grant unto us through His Seer, a revelation of His mind and will concerning our duty the coming season, even a great revelation, that will enlarge our hearts, comfort us in adversity, and brighten our hopes amidst the powers of darkness.”^[15]Smith, History of the Church, 2:209. In response to that request, Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord and received the first fifty-eight verses, excluding verses 53-55.^[16]Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, 2000, p. 785-786.

My Approach to D&C 107

To me, a quick way to understand D&C 107 is to talk about the first thing, which is to try and see why it was necessary and the big picture of what it is trying to solve or do. After this, I generally outline a basic structure of what it contains as an organizational section, since it is dealing with order and hierarchical structures within the system that we call priesthood.

The idea of governing, priesthood, and its connection to religion is very old. In the Old Testament, the editors of the text worked to establish the answer to the question, “Who has the right to officiate in the ritual/cultic practices of this religion at the temple?” The answer to this question was varied, depending on who was in power at the time and when the text was written, as well as when it was edited. But to be short in writing, this has to do with hierarchy.

Hierarchy

The word hierarchy is associated with two Greek words and concepts:

ἱερεύς – hiareús the word for priest, and ἀρχή – arkhḗ the word for chief, beginning, origin, sovereign, or dominion. According to one dictionary, hierarchy can be defined in this manner:

late 14c., jerarchie, ierarchie, “rank in the sacred order; one of the three divisions of the nine orders of angels;” loosely, “rule, dominion,” from Old French ierarchie (14c., Modern French hiérarchie), from Medieval Latin hierarchia “ranked division of angels” (in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite), from Greek hierarkhia “rule of a high priest,” from hierarkhes “high priest, leader of sacred rites,” from ta hiera “the sacred rites” (neuter plural of hieros “sacred;” see ire) + arkhein “to lead, rule” (see archon). Sense of “ranked organization of persons or things” first recorded 1610s, initially of clergy, sense probably influenced by higher.

This establishment of hierarchy was essential, as Joseph Smith knew that he would not be on earth forever, and as he viewed this kingdom as outlasting him, at least from this perspective we can see why these things were established. It answered several questions. Questions such as:

1. What is the general purpose of the Melchizedek Priesthood? (v. 18-19)
2. Who is to handle “the most difficult business” of the church? (v. 78)
3. What is the role (in April 1835) of the Quorum of the Twelve? (v. 23-24)
4. If the President of the Church is the final authority, who checks this authority? (v. 80-82)
5. What if the President of the High Priesthood (the President of the Church) is out of line? Is he above the law? (v. 81-82)
6. What if a quorum cannot come to a unanimous voice on difficult questions? (v. 27-28)
7. What are the duties of the bishop? (v. 69-74)

Certainly this section deals with other questions, things like the size of certain quorums, and the name of the priesthood and how it relates to Melchizedek. Issues connecting this priesthood to the ancients is addressed (v. 41-57), as well as verses discussing “literal descendancy” from Aaron (v.16, 69-70, 76). So my first and primary point in teaching this section is that it is about order, hierarchy, and the general reason for why this priesthood even exists. If we put those first things first, everything else seems to fall into place.

The Outline of D&C 107

There are Two Priesthoods: Melchizedek and Aaronic – 107.1-7

Those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood may officiate in all the offices of the Church – 107.8-12

Bishops – 107.13-17

The purpose of priesthood^[17]I would recommend that this be read first, for it is the mission statement as to why we have priesthood and its purpose. – 107.18-20

Presiding Quorums in the Church – 107.21-38

The Patriarchal Order – Going all the way back – 107.40-57

The Twelve and the order of the Church – 107.58-67

The office of bishop – D&C 68-76

The highest authority, the Presidency of the High Priesthood – 107.77-84

Presidents and the governing of quorums – 107.85-100

That’s it. With my brief introduction to 107, with the nature of establishing order, hierarchy, and after reading the purpose statement of the priesthood (107.18-20), I would have a simple outline of the section on the board, and invite the class members to participate, asking them where they would like to go in the lesson. What questions do they have? Examining the questions above may also facilitate an exploration and a discussion of this revelation.

D&C 107.1-6

Joseph Smith taught, “There are two Priesthoods spoken of in the Scriptures, viz., the Melchizedek and the Aaronic or Levitical. Although there are two Priesthoods, yet the Melchizedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world.”^[18]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 166. On another occasion the Prophet said, “All Priesthood is Melchizedek”^[19]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 180., meaning that the Melchizedek Priesthood embraces the Aaronic or lesser priesthood and that those who hold it can function in all the offices and duties of the Aaronic Priesthood. (see verses 5, 14).

Melchizedek was such a great high priest – D&C 107.2

From Ostler and McConkie^[20]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 331-333.:

Melchizedek is an enigma to both the Jewish and the Christian worlds. Without introduction or explanation he appears on the scene in the Valley of Shaveh (Kidron) when Abram is returning from rescuing his nephew, Lot, from the four kings who had carried him off. He brings with him bread and wine, blesses Abram, and receives tithes from him. The text refers to him as the king of Salem (Jerusalem) and as the priest of the most high God (Genesis 14:18-20).^[21]Of El Elyon: לְאֵל עֶלְיֽוֹן This name has the possibility of being connected to a separate deity, distinct from Yahweh. One scholar has observed, “Derived from the Hebrew … Continue reading Yet for a thousand years no mention of his name is found on the pages of holy writ. Then he appears as suddenly as he disappeared, and we find mention of him in a single psalm of David’s. “The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4). It appears that both David and Melchizedek as priest- kings are figures of the promised Messiah possessing the same order or priesthood that would belong to him. Again the scriptures fall silent for a period of a thousand years in which no reference is found to the name Melchizedek. Then Paul in his epistle to Hebrews tells us that Christ received the Melchizedek Priesthood and was ordained to the office of high priest. His purpose being to sustain the fact that Christ held a priesthood that was superior to that of Aaron and the Levites (Hebrews 5-7).

Scriptural silence provides a fertile field for legends. From books with discolored pages and covers that flake like piecrust we learn that ancient writers thought Melchizedek to be the patriarch Shem, his brother Ham, or Enoch, whose city was taken into heaven. Others have held that he was an angel, the Holy Ghost, the Messiah, or the Son of God.^[22]Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 3:1876. See also: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, p. 599-602.The matter becomes more confused, for the book of Hebrews declares him to be “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually” (Hebrews 7:3).

If, as prophecy assures us, the apostasy was to be universal, we could not expect other than that the knowledge and understanding of the priesthood would be lost along with all other saving truths. And so it was. The restoration of the priesthood requires the enigma of Melchizedek to be erased and a knowledge of this great preacher of righteousness to be restored. Such also has been the case. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “Melchizedek was a king over the land of Salem; and his people had waxed strong in iniquity and abomination; yea, they had all gone astray; they were full of all manner of wickedness; But Melchizedek having exercised mighty faith, and received the office of the high priesthood according to the holy order of God, did preach repentance unto his people. And behold, they did repent; and Melchizedek did establish peace in the land in his days; therefore he was called the prince of peace, for he was the king of Salem; and he did reign under his father. Now, there were many before him, and also there were many afterwards, but none were greater; therefore, of him they have more particularly made mention” (Alma 13:17-19).

In the current text we learn that, from his childhood, Melchizedek had been faithful and righteous and that he had been blessed and preserved by the power of the priesthood. By that power he had defended himself from both lions and fire. We also learn that it is the priesthood that is without father, mother, or end of days, not Melchizedek, as suggested in Hebrews 7:3.^[23]Margaret Barker says the following about Melchizedek: Two things only are said about Melchizedek in the Old Testament. First, he was the priest of El Elyon in Jerusalem who met Abraham and blessed … Continue reading

A Deeper Examination of Melchizedek

The name of Melchizedek appears twice (מַלְכִּי־צֶדֶק) in the Old Testament: Gen 14.18 and Psalm 110.4, and eight times (Μελχισέδεκ)in the New Testament: Hebrews 5.6, 5.10, 6.20, 7.1, 7.15, 7.17, 7.21 (where Ps 110.4 is quoted or alluded to five times). The meaning of the name is either ‘my king is righteousness’ or ‘my king is Zedek’… It is a theophoric name. Outside the Bible the name of Melchizedek plays an important part in Jewish and Christian sources depending on the biblical data. The so-called Melchizedekians regarded him as a divine figure.^[24]Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (editors), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Second Extensively Revised Edition, 1999, p. … Continue reading

In Gen 14.8-20 the brief narrative of Abraham’s meeting with Melchizedek is inserted in another story, the meeting of Abraham and the king of Sodom, and probably placed here in order to give a parallel to that story. Melchizedek is introduced as king of Salem, probably Jerusalem (Ps. 76.3; Josephus, Ant. I 180) and as priest of the god Most High el elyon, (probably a Canaanite deity) the creator of heaven and earth. The combination of kingship and priesthood is not unknown in the ancient Near East…

Another occurrence of Melchizedek is found in Ps. 110.4. The psalm is a song for the enthronement of a ruler, probably a king (though the word ‘king’ is not used),^[25]See Baker and Ricks, Who Shall Ascend to the Hill of the Lord? The Psalms in Israel’s Temple Worship in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, Eborn Books, 2011. in Jerusalem (cf. ‘Zion’ in v 2)…Recent scholarship locates the psalm in the time of the early Israelite kingship. It contains two oracles in which the king-to-be is directly addressed, probably by a prophet, viz. in v 1 and v 4. The former is the enthronement-formula which guarantees divine support for the new king, the latter, introduced by a divine oath, declares him to be priest forever as well.

His priesthood is defined as ‘in’ or ‘after the manner of Melchizedek’ (‘al dibrati malki-sedeq).The exact meaning of this phrase is hard to establish. It may mean ‘in the line of Melchizedek’, i.e. inheriting the priesthood of Melchizedek, ‘like Melchizedek’, or ‘on account of Melchizedek’. The common translation ‘order’ is due to the LXX where ‘al dibrati^[26]It is interesting that this is the common feminine singular of dibrah –al dibratiy (עַל־דִּבְרָתִי), upon my reason, my order, my cause. The word dabar can have a … Continue readingis rendered κατὰ τὴν τάξιν – kata ten taxin. Probably the formula shows that the kings of Israel, beginning with David, inherited the tradition of the priest-king of pre-Israelite Jerusalem.

This connection between kingship and priesthood apparently did not last very long since no king of Judah was called priest^[27]Nephi was a king and a priest. He received visions, built a temple, and taught his people about the redeeming Messiah. He anointed his younger brothers Jacob and Joseph as priests. (See: 2 Ne. … Continue reading and allusions to priestly conduct are limited to David and Solomon (cf. 2 Sam 6.14-18^[28]David was girded with the linen ephod, something that priests did ancient.; 1 Kgs 8.14-56).^[29]See: Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, Pieter W. van der Horst (editors), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Second Extensively Revised Edition, 1999, … Continue reading The title ‘priest forever’ is not found again until I Macc. 14:41.

The only other references to Melchizedek in the Bible occur in Hebrews, particularly chapter 7. The very special interpretation of Gen. 14 and Ps. 110 presented there cannot be understood without taking into account contemporaneous Melchizedek interpretations in Jewish sources, viz. (a) Josephus, (b) Philo. and (c) Qumran. Together with (d) Hebrews they present a very composite picture of Melchizedek.

In Josephus, WarVI, Melchizedek is mentioned as a Canaanite chief (dynastes).^[30]Josephus writes: And thus was Jerusalem taken, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, on the eighth day of the month Gorpeius [A.D. 70]. It had been taken five times before: though this was … Continue reading His Hebrew name is not mentioned but translated into Greek as ‘righteous king’ and this shows that Melchizedek is meant. According to Josephus, Melchizedek was the first one to build the temple and to act as priest of God. In Ant. I 179-181 the story of Gen 14.18-20 is told with some minor embellishments. The name of Melchizedek is mentioned and again translated as ‘righteous king’. Josephus adds that by common consent this was what he was and that for that reason Melchizedek was made priest of God. In both places Melchizedek is described as king and priest, i.e. as an historical person.

Philo mentions Melchizedek in three places: De Abr. 235, De Congr. 99, and Leg. All. III 79-82. In De Abr. 235 the story of Gen 14.18-20 is retold and embellished. Melchizedek is called ‘the great priest of the Most High God’: thinking that Abraham’s success was due to divine wisdom and help, he stretched his hands to heaven and honoured him with prayers and offered sacrifices on his behalf and entertained him and his men lavishly. In the subsequent allegorical interpretation of the story of Abraham’s warfare (Gen 14.1-24) Melchizedek is not mentioned again: he acts as a historical person only. In De Congr. 99 Melchizedek is mentioned in an excursus on the number ten (89-120) with reference to the fact that Abraham gave him one tenth of everything (Gen 14:20). This is interpreted metaphorically: ‘everything’ comprises the things of sense, speech and thought…

Melchizedek is presented as an example of people who are honoured by God without having done beforehand something to please Him. He was made king by God and he was the first to be worthy to be his priest. Philo contrasts this king with a despot (tyrannos) who is identified as ‘mind’ (nous)and decrees things that cause hurt, pain, wickedness and indulgence of passions. The king does not decree but persuades and exhorts people to let themselves be governed by the king as the good pilot who is the ‘right reason’ (orthos logos),at the same time a moral principle and the principle of divine wisdom. Melchizedek as the ‘righteous king’ is the incorporation of the ‘right reason’. He is the prince of peace and brings bread and wine as food for the souls… In Philo’s perspective Melchizedek as a king and priest does not cease to be a historical person but at the same time serves as the embodiment of the divine orthos logos and transcends history.

In the Qumran texts Melchizedek is mentioned twice. In IQapGen 22 the story of Gen 14.18-20 is translated more or less literally with some minor additions. Melchizedek is represented as an historical person without comment or interpretation of his name…

The early Christians made use of Psalm 110 for christological reasons. The hymn was seen as the scriptural proof for the exaltation of Christ (cf. e.g. Mark 14.62; Acts 2.34-35; I Cor 15.25) but only in Hebrews the reference to Melchizedek and his priesthood are used as part of the argument concerning the high priesthood of Christ. Basically Melchizedek plays a hermeneutical role in Hebrews in order to establish the supremacy of that high priesthood over the priesthood of the tabernacle.^[31]DDD, p. 562.

The description of Melchizedek in Hebrews 7.1-3 consists of the following four sections: (I) A summary of Gen 14: 18-20 (v 1-2a): relevant to the argument are the blessing of Abraham by Melchizedek and the giving of one tenth of everything to Melchizedek by Abraham, since they show that Melchizedek was superior to Abraham and, implicitly, to his descendants Levi and the Levite priesthood.^[32]DDD, p. 562.

Because of the relationship of Melchizedek and the Son of God this superiority also applies to Christ; (2) An interpretation of the name as ‘king of righteousness’ and ‘king of peace’ (v 2b): this resembles the interpretation of Philo and Josephus and suggests a common exegetical tradition but plays no part in the argument. (3) A series of qualifications in the negative (v 3a): “without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life”. They are not mentioned in Gen. 14 or Ps. 110 nor in Philo, Josephus and or II QMelch… Apart from that they presuppose Melchizedek to be some sort of a divine being. (4) A description of the relationship between Melchizedek and the Son of God by the participle aphomoidmenos ἀφωμοιωμένος (v 3b= having been made): the introductory particle de δὲ suggests that this statement serves to qualify the preceding picture of Melchizedek.^[33]Hebrews 7.3 reads as follows: … Continue reading He is not a divine being in his own right but he is “made to be like the Son of God” as described in Heb. 1.1-14. The Son of God is the type and Melchizedek is the antitype.

He appears on the one hand as a human and historical king and on the other hand as a more-than-human being resembling, and in a sense representing, the eternal Son of God. Over all the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews combines the biblical traditions concerning Melchizedek with a tradition of Melchizedek as a divine being (perhaps similar to 11 QMelch) to serve his hermeneutical and theological purpose.

The traditions concerning Melchizedek described so far have given rise to various speculations both in Jewish and Christian sources which testify to his deification. The evidence for these Melchizedekian sects is collected and interpreted in Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 1989, p. 194-195 and F.L Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, Cambridge, 1976, p. 87-147.^[34]DDD, p. 563.

The right of presidency and the “Presidency of the High Priesthood” – D&C 107.8-9

The “Presidency of the High Priesthood,” meaning the First Presidency of the Church, presides over all other offices and officers in the Church. Joseph Smith taught that “revelations of the mind and will of God to the Church, are to come through the Presidency.”^[35]History of the Church, 2:477. Of necessity the First Presidency holds all the keys of the kingdom (D&C 90:2). Keys are the “right of presidency,” and priesthood is used properly only when it is used under the direction of those who hold its keys. For instance, holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood can confer that priesthood upon others. They can do so, however, only under the direction of those holding the keys of the priesthood. To act independent of the direction of those holding the keys is to lose the priesthood. An ordinance not performed under their direction counts for nothing in the Church and kingdom of God.^[36]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 787.

Under the direction of the First Presidency high priests can be called to positions of presidency and to administer spiritual things. This revelation notes that their office encompasses that of an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood and the offices of priest, teacher, and deacon in the Aaronic Priesthood. It does not include the office of seventy, which belongs to the Melchizedek Priesthood, or the office of bishop, which belongs to the Aaronic Priesthood. The suggestion here is that seventies were to hold general authority status rather than be a part of the local organization. It was not necessary to include the office of bishop in this verse because a bishop, which is an office in the Aaronic Priesthood, must also be a high priest (D&C 68:19).^[37]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 788.

Literal descendant of Aaron – 107.16, 69-70, 76

See: Literal Descendants of Aaron and Bishops

The Purpose of the Priesthood – 107.18-20

Earlier in this section (107.8-10; 15), “keys” are equated with the “right of presidency,” meaning the authority to preside. In the present text the emphasis shifts to unlocking things that would otherwise remain hidden. As used here “keys” become an individual possession by which sacred truths are revealed and divine promises obtained. “Without this priesthood power, men are lost,” President Spencer W. Kimball explained. “Only through this power does man ‘hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church,’ enabling him to receive ‘the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened’ unto him (see D&C 107:18-19), enabling him to enter the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and to have his wife and children bound to him in an everlasting tie, enabling him to become a patriarch to his posterity forever, and enabling him to receive a fullness of the blessings of the Lord.”^[38]Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 494. See Revelations of the Restoration, p. 789.

The promises laid out in these verses are not the exclusive property of prophets but are intended for all of the faithful Saints. All of us are to obtain the key of understanding. To receive it, we must first receive the higher priesthood, and both men and women must embrace the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant, and the priesthood as we receive God, his messengers, and the ordinances and blessings of salvation. As God’s power is priesthood power, both men and women exercise this power as they serve in the Church and work to build his kingdom. The Melchizedek Priesthood was restored in order that the children of God might once again be brought into his presence (see D&C 84.19-25). As McConkie and Ostler have stated, “It is not future worlds to which this promise is directed but to the mortal and corruptible state in which we now reside.”

While I certainly agree with this statement in the context of this revelation and D&C 84, and my reading of Joseph’s teachings in Nauvoo and Kirtland, I also recognize that this is not the general experience of the Church. I generally refer to Elder McConkie’s address that he gave at the University of Utah when he made the following statement:

We don’t need to get a complex or get a feeling that you have to be perfect to be saved. You don’t. There’s only been one perfect person, and that’s the Lord Jesus, but in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God and in order to pass the test of mortality, what you have to do is get on the straight and narrow path — thus charting a course leading to eternal life — and then, being on that path, pass out of this life in full fellowship. I’m not saying that you don’t have to keep the commandments. I’m saying you don’t have to be perfect to be saved. If you did, no one would be saved. The way it operates is this: you get on the path that’s named the “straight and narrow.” You do it by entering the gate of repentance and baptism. The straight and narrow path leads from the gate of repentance and baptism, a very great distance, to a reward that’s called eternal life. If you’re on that path and pressing forward, and you die, you’ll never get off the path. There is no such thing as falling off the straight and narrow path in the life to come, and the reason is that this life is the time that is given to men to prepare for eternity. Now is the time and the day of your salvation, so if you’re working zealously in this life — though you haven’t fully overcome the world and you haven’t done all you hoped you might do — you’re still going to be saved. You don’t have to do what Jacob said, “Go beyond the mark.” You don’t have to live a life that’s truer than true. You don’t have to have an excessive zeal that becomes fanatical and becomes unbalancing. What you have to do is stay in the mainstream of the Church and live as upright and decent people live in the Church — keeping the commandments, paying your tithing, serving in the organizations of the Church, loving the Lord, staying on the straight and narrow path. If you’re on that path when death comes — because this is the time and the day appointed, this the probationary estate — you’ll never fall off from it, and, for all practical purposes, your calling and election is made sure. Now, that isn’t the definition of that term, but the end result will be the same.^[39]Bruce R. McConkie, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Address given at the University of Utah Institute of Religion January 10, 1982.

Chosen by the body – 107.22

At the original organization of the presidency of the Church in 1832, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles had not yet been established (that took place in 1835). Therefore, in the case of Joseph Smith, “chosen by the body” meant chosen by the body of the high priesthood, which then served as a governing council of the Church. Joseph Smith had been so chosen at a conference of high priests in Amherst, Ohio, on 25 January 1832. By the time of Joseph Smith’s death on 27 June 1844, the Quorum of the Twelve had been formally organized and “form[ed] a quorum, equal in authority and power” to the First Presidency (v. 24). Therefore, with the organization of the Twelve and of the Seventy in 1835, and with the hierarchy of authority established by revelation in Doctrine and Covenants 107, the whole body of the high priesthood was no longer a governing council. According to Doctrine and Covenants 107:22–26, with the death of Joseph Smith and the disorganization of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve became the presiding quorum of the Church and Brigham Young, the president of that quorum, became the de facto presiding officer of the Church. President Young was ordained president of the Church and formally reorganized the First Presidency on 5 December 1847. In the Church today, “chosen by the body”^[40]See Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, Apr. 1970, 122–26; Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 17. has been interpreted to mean chosen by the Quorum of the Twelve.^[41]Garrett and Robinson, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, volume 4.

Another commentator put it this way:

Though somewhat ambiguous as used in this verse, “the body” is the newly formed Quorum of the Twelve to which this revelation was given. Precedence accords that at the death of the president of the Church, his counselors are released and the quorum of the First Presidency is dissolved. “The body” responsible to form the new presidency of the Church is the Quorum of the Twelve.

When the First Presidency is dissolved by the death of its president, the Quorum of the Twelve then becomes the leading quorum in the Church. Its president, the senior apostle of God on earth, presides over the Church by virtue of the fact that he presides over its leading quorum. No other man on earth has the right to lead. Indeed, the Quorum of the Twelve cannot even meet unless the senior apostle calls a meeting. When such a meeting is called, he presides over it. If revelation is to come, it must, according to the order of the Church, come through him. At the death of the President of the Church, the president of the Quorum of the Twelve automatically succeeds him. He is the mouthpiece of the Lord to the Church; no one else has a rightful claim to that privilege. From Brigham Young to the present day, this has always been the case.

Can the Lord change that order if he wants to? Of course; it’s his Church and he runs it. But should he choose to change the order he has established, he must, according to his word, do it through the channels he has ordained. The only man on earth who can receive a revelation that the president of the quorum of the Twelve should not lead the Church is the president of that quorum. No other individual or quorum can receive that revelation until it has come through the channel the Lord has ordained. If a man is worthy and capable of presiding over the Quorum of the Twelve, he is certainly worthy and capable of presiding over the Church. What if the senior apostle is serving as a counselor in the First Presidency at the death of the president of the Church rather than as president of the Quorum of the Twelve? A senior apostle serving in the First Presidency is sustained as a member of the First Presidency and as president of the Quorum of the Twelve. The next senior apostle is sustained as “acting president” over that quorum. When the First Presidency is dissolved by the death of its president, the counselor who is the senior apostle assumes his rightful position as the president of the Twelve.^[42]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 791, emphasis added.

107.23 The Traveling Councilors… called Twelve Apostles

This term refers to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and is also the name given to them in Doctrine and Covenants 102:28–30. Some of their qualifications were identified in Doctrine and Covenants 18:27–39. The Quorum of the Twelve hold collectively all the keys and authority held by the First Presidency. However, those keys reside individually in only one person—the president of the Church; he alone can exercise all those keys. When the president dies, the First Presidency is dissolved, and the Quorum of the Twelve, presided over by the president of the Twelve, possesses and can exercise collectively all the keys, power, and authority necessary to continue the work of the Church and to reorganize the First Presidency.^[43]Garrett and Robinson, volume 4.

Twelve Apostles

One historian^[44]D. Michael Quinn, The Evolution of the Presiding Quorums of the LDS Church p. 26-27 went more into the background and history of this designated office:

As early as 1830, Joseph Smith and his former scribe Oliver Cowdery were designated as apostles, having received the authority Peter, James, and John the previous year.^[45]Book of Commandments, p. 48; D&C 20.2-3. The establishment of a governing body of twelve men had been alluded to in a revelation announced by Joseph Smith in June 1829.^[46]Book of Commandments, p. 37-38, D&C 18.26-39. These men were to preach to Jew and Gentile, to baptize, and to ordain men to the ministry. The establishment of such a body of men was an obvious response to the New Testament precedent of the Twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus.^[47]Luke 6.13; Acts 1.21-26. These modern apostles were to be sought out and chosen by Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, two men who had given public testimony that an angel had showed them the plates from which the Book of Mormon had been translated. Although several men were ordained to the office of apostle during the first year of the church’s history, it was not until 1835 that twelve men were chosen to comprise this special presiding quorum.^[48]Quinn explains: It is generally recognized that prior to 1835 Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer were ordained apostles (Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 18:9, 20:2—3). There may also … Continue reading On February 14, 1835, men were ordained apostles and named the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.^[49]Smith, Essentials, pp. 63-64, 151—52. Although any number of living men could be ordained to the office of apostle, by definition the Quorum of Twelve Apostles was comprised of twelve such ordained men.

Duties of the (1835) Twelve

Quinn continues:

As with the other units of the hierarchy, Joseph Smith gave early definition to the responsibility of the Quorum. On February 27, 1835, he proposed to answer the question, “What importance is there attached to the calling of these twelve Apostles different from the other callings or offices of the Church?” To that query, he responded:

They are the Twelve Apostles, who are called to the office of traveling high council, who are to preside over all the churches of the Saints among the Gentiles, where there is no presidency established, and 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 to preach the Gospel to every creature. This is the power, authority and virtue of their Apostleship.^[50]See Quinn, p. 27-28. See also: Kirtland Council Minute Book, p. 88, manuscript, Church Archives. The published version of this passage has omitted the word “no” prior to the word … Continue reading

The “presidency” referred to in this quote is not the Presidency of the church but is instead the organized presidency and high council of a stake. At the time the Quorum of the Twelve was organized, there were two stakes of the church, one at Kirtland, Ohio, and one in Missouri. Each stake had a local presidency and high council. The high council’s responsibilities were to govern the members, arbitrate disputes, investigate misconduct, and generally oversee the ecclesiastical and religious life of the stake.

The significance of the “standing high councils” of the stakes is that according to the instructions of Joseph Smith on May 2, 1835, the jurisdiction of the Twelve Apostles ended where that of the stakes began:

The twelve apostles have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes where there is a regular high council established, to regulate any matter pertaining thereto: But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate and set in order all matters relative to the different branches of the church of the Latter Day Saints.

No standing high council has authority to go into the churches abroad and regulate the matters thereof, for this belongs to the Twelve.^[51]Minutes of a Grand Council at Kirtland, Ohio, 2 May 1835, manuscript, included in Patriarchal Blessing Book 2, Church Archives. A rephrased version of these minutes is found in Roberts, History … Continue reading Combining this instruction with that of February 27, it is evident that the Quorum of the Twelve was originally intended to operate only in those areas of the church where there was no regularly organized stake.^[52]Quinn, p. 28, emphasis added.

What changed? How did the Traveling Councilors become the Twelve Apostles we see in the modern Church?

Quinn gives the following evidence for reasons why these changes may have occurred:

Unlike any other unit of the hierarchy, however, the functions and juris diction of the Quorum of the Twelve were significantly expanded by Joseph Smith several years after the formation of the body.^[53]A valuable essay on this development is T. Edgar Lyon, “Nauvoo and the Council of the Twelve,” The Restoration Movement: Essays in Mormon History, ed. by F. Mark McKiernan, Alma R. Blair, … Continue reading This development began in 1841, and apparently resulted from two factors: first, the remarkable successes of the Twelve in converting thousands of Britons to the church, organizing them into branches, and preparing them to emigrate to the headquarters of the church at Nauvoo, Illinois; second, a record of constant devotion to Joseph Smith by several of the apostles during periods of persecution, apostasy, and turmoil.^[54]Roberts, History of the Church, 4:403.

In a revelation dictated by Joseph Smith on January 19, 1841, the Quorum of the Twelve was designated to “hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.”^[55]Doctrine and Covenants, Section 124:128. On 28 March 1835 it is true that the Quorum of the Twelve was designated as being equal in authority to the First Presidency, but in the same revelation it … Continue reading On August 16, 1841, at a special conference the Quorum was authorized to select men to go on missions, and then Joseph stated “that the time had come when the Twelve should be called upon to stand in their place next to the First Presidency, and attend to the settling of emigrants and the business of the Church at the stakes, and assist to bear off the kingdom victoriously to the nations.”^[56]Roberts, History of the Church, 4:403; Journal of Willard Richards, 16 August 1841, Church Archives. In pursuance of these instructions, the Twelve Apostles were also appointed to assist Joseph Smith in his duties as Trustee-in-Trust for the finances of the church.

Following the return of seven of the Twelve Apostles from England on July 1, 1841, their ascendancy began. During 1841 seven of the Quorum of the Twelve became members of the city council of Nauvoo, and by April 1844 four more had been called to serve there.^[57]Nauvoo City Council Minutes, 1841-1844, manuscript, Nauvoo, Illinois, Collection, Church Archives. The only member of the Quorum of the Twelve who did not serve on the city council during this period … Continue reading On January 28, 1843, Joseph Smith announced a revelation giving the Twelve control over the church organ, the Times and Seasons, and also the printing of all church publications.^[58]Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 8 February 1842, Church Archives; Roberts, History of the Church, 4:503. Moreover, President Smith commissioned the Twelve Apostles on June 18, 1842 “to organize the Church more according to the law of God” and to supervise the settlement of immigrants in Nauvoo.^[59]Journal of Wilford Woodruff, 18 June 1842; Roberts, History of the Church, 5:35. This was a crucial development in the gradual ascendancy of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Now, for the first time, they were authorized to regulate the affairs within the jurisdiction of a stake high council, specifically the Nauvoo High Council. Thus, within a year following the return of the Twelve Apostles from Europe, this body was directing the political, economic and ecclesiastical affairs of the church at home and abroad.

Having given the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles increasing authority in the public ministry of the church by 1842, Joseph Smith also commissioned that body to direct other lesser known developments within the church. On May 4, 1842, he met with three of the Twelve and several other church leaders, “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 the Melchisedek Priesthood.”^[60]Roberts, History of the Church, 5:1-2. This was the introduction of the endowment ceremony within the church, a sacerdotal ritualization of theology, covenants, and instructions. After its introduction this rite was administered under the direction of Joseph Smith and members of the Quorum of the Twelve, and constituted an ordinance of the LDS temple.^[61]Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo: Kingdom, on the Mississippi (Urbana, 111., 1965) , pp. 271-73. Following this development, Joseph Smith revealed to the Quorum of the Twelve a doctrine which required the practice of plural marriage. Under his direction, members of the Quorum married plural wives and began solemnizing such marriages for others.^[62]Flanders, Nauvoo Kingdom, p. 267-72, 274-277. See also: Andrew Jenson, “Plural Marriage,” The Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 219-40.

Quinn concludes that by 1844 the power and authority of the Twelve under Joseph Smith had been established. They were now the second most powerful governing body in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, something that was not defined in 1835 like it became understood just nine years later.^[63]Quinn, p. 30-31.

Another example: The Seventy

Another area of concern with which many of the former Church leaders had worked, and to which Elder Packer and the Brethren gave concerted attention, was that of the proper role and place of the Seventy. Their concern came at a time when, even with the combined support groups of Assistants to the Twelve, Regional Representatives, and the Seventy, they were taxed to the limit in administering what had become a worldwide church. The need to provide increasing General Authority leadership for the Church had become crucial. In order to meet the challenge, the Brethren sought the will of the Lord…

All knew that the Seventy, as they were organized on a stake level, could not fill their prophetic roles. They must somehow be brought into closer compliance with the scriptural charter. One who had given much thought and study to those scriptures and to the solution they surely must contain was Elder Boyd K. Packer. He felt both the urgency and the weight of the matter. Finally his brethren assigned him to prepare a document briefing the discussions and decisions of the Church leaders with reference to the Seventy from the beginning. As the work progressed, and in a marvelous way, unexpected visitors dropped by his office to leave materials that might interest him. One brought notes from the personal papers of President George Albert Smith on the Seventy; another, President Harold B. Lee’s personal notes on the same subject. Laboring in faith and diligence, Brother Packer continued the quest, to know the Lord’s will.

He studied and pondered the passages in D&C 107 that pertain specifically to the Seventy. As he read and reread, verse 10 suddenly stood out as if it had been newly placed there: “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, and also in the office of an elder, priest, teacher, deacon, and member” (D&C 107:10).

Elder Packer tells of the impact upon him: “It suddenly occurred to me that that was a verse on the Seventy that should be added to the others. The reason it had never been considered was that it did not mention the Seventy. And the significance of it was that it did not mention the Seventy. I took it to Bruce McConkie first and read it to him in that context. It was the first time that he had ever seen it in that light. Because it very declaratively said that a high priest could not officiate in the office of a Seventy.” Traditionally, the order of priesthood leadership had been listed deacon, teacher, priest, elder, seventy, high priest, Seventy, Apostle. Now the brethren could see how the Lord intended it to be: deacon, teacher, priest, elder, high priest, Seventy, Apostle, with the Seventy being listed only once. In that sequence, all scripture with reference to the Seventy quickly fell into place. From that newly highlighted scripture there came to the Brethren the understanding of the Lord’s will relative to the Seventy. The call of a Seventy was not a local priesthood call; rather, it was henceforth to be as the Lord had said; the Seventy “form a quorum equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles” (D&C 107:26). The Lord further stated that the Seventy were “to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council” (D&C 107:34). This was to be in the same sense that the Twelve act in the name of the Lord under direction of the First Presidency.

Thus the Brethren, through revelation to one of their number, were provided with the answer… As an obedient instrument in the hands of the Lord, and under direction of the Brethren, Elder Packer with his diligent study and spiritual effort became a significant factor in the changes that followed. In perfect unity the Twelve presented their recommendations to the First Presidency. After much prayer and deliberation, the prophet and his Counselors began to implement orderly changes relative to the Seventy. On 1 October 1976 the First Quorum of the Seventy was expanded by the release of all twenty-one Assistants to the Twelve and their call as Seventies, and by the calling of four new Seventies. President Kimball stated that the establishment of the First Quorum of the Seventy as one of “the three governing quorums of the Church defined by the revelations” was a great milestone in priesthood government at the general Church level and “will make it possible to handle efficiently the present heavy workload and to prepare for the increasing expansion and acceleration of the work, anticipating the day when the Lord will return to take direct charge of His Church and Kingdom.”^[64]Lucile Tate, Boyd K. Packer; A Watchman on the Tower, 235-237.

The Management of the Kingdom

John Taylor expressed this sentiment as it was revealed to him concerning the organization of the Church:

Let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of my Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of my work. Fear me and observe my laws and I will reveal unto you, from time to time, through the channels that I have appointed, everything that shall be necessary for the future development and perfection of my Church, for the adjustment and rolling forth of my kingdom, and for the building up and the establishment of my Zion. For ye are my Priesthood and I am your God. Even so. Amen.^[65]A Revelation given through John Taylor, Apr. 14, 1883, Messages of the First Presidency, 2:354.

107.23 Special witnesses of the name of Christ.

The principal calling and function of an apostle is to be a special witness of the name of Christ to all the world. This calling requires that a special witness be given to each apostle; however, that does not necessarily mean that an apostle has actually seen the risen Lord. As President Joseph Fielding Smith observed: “It is their privilege to see him if occasion requires, but the Lord has taught that there is a stronger witness than seeing a personage, even of seeing the Son of God in a vision. Impressions on the soul that come from the Holy Ghost are far more significant than a vision.”^[66]Smith, Improvement Era, Nov. 1966, 979. See also: Garrett and Robinson, volume 4.

107.24 Equal in Authority

Elder Hyrum M. Smith and Janne M. Sjodahl explained that “there can never be two or three quorums of equal authority at the same time; therefore in the revelation where it reads that the Twelve Apostles form a quorum equal in authority with the First Presidency, and that the Seventies form a quorum equal in authority with the Twelve, it should be understood that this condition of equality could prevail only when the ranking quorum is no longer in existence, through death or otherwise. When the First Presidency becomes disorganized on the death of the President, then the Apostles become the presiding quorum, or council, of the Church with all the power to organize again the First Presidency, when they fall back again as the second ranking quorum of the Church. So with the Seventies, they would become equal only on the condition that the first two quorums ceased to exist. In regard to the Seventies, this provision, of course, concerns the first quorum of the Seventies.”^[67]Smith and Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, 700, emphasis added. If through some catastrophe the two leading quorums of the Church were dissolved, the First Quorum of the Seventy would become the leading quorum in the Church. It would be that quorum’s responsibility to reorganize the Quorum of the Twelve, which in turn would reorganize the First Presidency.^[68]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 792-793, emphasis added.

Joseph F. Smith also explained:

Let me call your attention to this principle. The Lord has not established in the Church two heads, two presiding quorums to run parallel with each other. He has established an order in this Priesthood, which is absolutely indestructible so long as there is a single man holding this Priesthood and exercising the rights and functions thereof in righteousness. The meaning of this passage is simply this: When, from death or any cause, there is no First Presidency, then the authority of presidency rests upon the Twelve Apostles. It does not mean that their authority is equal to the authority of the First Presidency while there is a First Presidency. Such would breed confusion and disorder. There could be no presidency under circumstances of this kind.

Therefore, the equality of the authority of the Twelve Apostles with that of the First Presidency manifests itself when they are called to exercise that authority in the absence of the First Presidency. Yet it has been contended, so we have been credibly informed, that it was wrong to organize the First Presidency after the death of the Prophet Joseph; that the Twelve Apostles should have been the presiding council of the Church, and that there should have been an executive committee appointed out of the Twelve to conduct the affairs of the Church…

Would anybody think for a moment of contending that, because the authority of the First Presidency, the authority of the Twelve Apostles, and the authority of the Seventy was equal, therefore there was a triple-headed presidency of the Church, and that it was necessary that all three of these councils of the Priesthood should exercise in equal power and authority the presidency at one and the same time? Why, that would be nonsense, and would absolutely destroy the principle of government. It would be only in case of the destruction of the Presidency of the Church and of the Twelve Apostles that the Seventy could come forth and exercise authority equal with that of the Twelve in the absence of the First Presidency, and of the First Presidency when the church is fully organized.^[69]Brian H. Stuy, ed., Collected Discourses, 5 vols., 1987-1992, vol. 5, April 4, 1897.

The Seventy – D&C 107.25

The office of a seventy is to teach the gospel in all the world. The Seventy are of necessity general officers of the Church. Though it took some time for the Church to grow up into the provisions of this revelation, it now follows this pattern.

On this matter John Taylor received a significant revelation while he presided over the Church. On Saturday, 14 April 1883, in answer to the question: “Show unto us Thy will, O Lord, concerning the organization of the Seventies,” he received the following: “Thus saith the Lord unto the First Presidency, unto the Twelve, unto the Seventies and unto all my holy Priesthood, let not your hearts be troubled, neither be ye concerned about the management and organization of my Church and Priesthood and the accomplishment of my work. Fear me and observe my laws and I will reveal unto you, from time to time, through the channels that I have appointed, everything that shall be necessary for the future development and perfection of my Church, for the adjustment and rolling forth of my kingdom, and for the building up and the establishment of my Zion. For ye are my Priesthood and I am your God. Even so Amen.” ^[70]Clark, Messages, 2:354.

Unanimous voice of the same – 107.27-29

Elder Boyd K. Packer explained this command to be united in the decisions of the leading quorums: “When a matter comes before The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in a temple meeting, one thing that is determined very quickly is whether it is of serious consequence or not. One or another of us will see in an apparently innocent proposal, issues of great and lasting consequence.

“It is clear from the revelations that the decisions of the presiding quorums ‘must be by the unanimous voice of the same. . . . Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings’ (D&C 107:27–29). In order to ensure that to be the case, matters of consequence are seldom decided in the meeting where they are proposed. And, if the proposal is a part of a larger issue, sufficient time is taken to ‘bring us all along’ so that it is clear that each of us has either a clear understanding of the issue or, as is often the case, has a very clear feeling about it.

“The Doctrine and Covenants instructs us: ‘Let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege’ (D&C 88:122).

“It would be unthinkable to deliberately present an issue in such a way that approval depended upon how it was maneuvered through channels, who was presenting it, or who was present or absent when it was presented.

“Often one or more of us is away during regular meetings. We all know that the work must proceed and will accept the judgment of our brethren. However, if a matter has been studied by one of the Quorum in more detail than by the others or he is more familiar with it either by assignment, experience, or personal interest, the matter is very often delayed until he can be in on the discussion.

“And always, if one of us cannot understand an issue or feels unsettled about it, it is held over for future discussion. . . . There is a rule we follow: A matter is not settled until there is a minute entry to evidence that all of the Brethren in council assembled (not just one of us, not just a committee) have come to a unity of feeling. Approval of a matter in principle is not considered authority to act until a minute entry records the action taken—usually when the minutes are approved in the next meeting.

“Sometimes an afterthought keeps one of us restless over a decision. That is never dismissed lightly. It cannot be assumed that that restless spirit is not in fact the Spirit of Revelation.

“That is how we function—in council assembled. That provides safety for the Church and a high comfort level for each of us who is personally accountable. Under the plan, men of very ordinary capacity may be guided through counsel and inspiration to accomplish extraordinary things.”^[71]Elder Boyd K. Packer, “I Say unto You, Be One,” BYU Speeches, February 12, 1991, p. 3–4.

The order of the priesthood – 107.40-57

This term refers to the Melchizedek Priesthood in its patriarchal aspect,46 as is also indicated by verses 53–55, having been previously revealed when Joseph Smith Sr. was set apart as a patriarch to the Church. Ideally, the Melchizedek Priesthood is to be passed from a righteous patriarch to righteous posterity. Note in verses 41–50 that Adam personally ordained and blessed each generation of his lineage as long as he lived, so that patriarchal does not exclusively mean from father to son but from patriarch to posterity. Not every son is privileged to be ordained by his father in the modern Church, but like Abraham, all are descendants of “the Fathers” Adam and Noah (vv. 41, 51), and every stake has its spiritual patriarch, who bestows patriarchal blessings.^[72]Garrett and Robinson, volume 4.

He called . . . the residue of his posterity who were righteous – 107.53

Though not found in the Old Testament, the idea that Adam had called his posterity together shortly before his death and blessed them and prophesied of the future (v. 56) was widely accepted in ancient Judaism and early Christianity. Once again, Joseph Smith here provides details in complete harmony with ancient traditions concerning an event on which the Bible is silent.^[73]Garrett and Robinson, volume 4.  See, for example, Josephus, Antiquities, 1.2.3, or the opening lines of the gnostic Apocalypse of Adam; for further information, see Stephen E. … Continue reading

The Power to Decide – 107.79

I have mentioned this before in the podcast in other lessons, but this passage has great meaning to me personally. To me, from my reading of this, the president of the Church is given the power to decide the direction of the Church. I see this in a similar vein as the passages that show us Nephi, trying to get the Plates of Brass, working to fulfill the will of the Lord, making decisions based on the best ability at his disposal, and working with and through the agency of others. Things do not always work out. But Nephi is given the power to decide.

A classic example of this misunderstanding of how prophets work is the recent decision (2021) to remove the Saturday evening priesthood session of General Conference. This decision, made in June of 2021, was reversed approximately a month later in July 2021. The comment sections in some of the news feeds were filled with accusations that “God changed his mind.”^[74]Sean P. Means, “LDS leaders shift gears, revive Saturday evening sessions of General Conference,” July 27, 2021, Salt Lake Tribune. I see this scripture having all kinds of applications, one of them being a way for me to see and understand specific decisions that I do not fully understand, or that I disagree with. I have yet to meet someone that agrees with every single decision and verse of scripture that their church or faith tradition subscribes to. Perhaps I will one day meet such a person, but as of today I have yet to have made their acquaintance. So when I struggle with a past decision by the Presidency, or by a prophet in a sacred text, I use this verse to try and see how and why this person, who had the power of decision, may have seen what they saw the way they did. That way I can try and see things from their perspective. I may (and usually do) still disagree with the decision, but it will expand my mind and help me to see things from a different point of view. This may not be helpful to you, but for me it has been a great release with some of the tension that religion and religious practice can cause at times.

No one is exempt from the (law of) this council of the church – 107.81-82

As long as there is such a thing as right and wrong, as long as God continues to be a God of laws, and as long as the membership of the Church embraces mortal beings, there will be a necessity for church disciplinary councils. As every member of the Church is to work out his or her salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), so all are subject to the order and discipline of the Church. No one is above the law. It is not to historical Christianity that one turns to find such principles, for historical Christianity is seriously marred by supposed spiritual leaders who held themselves above the law—be it man’s or God’s laws—and whose actions have been in many cases “enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy” (D&C 123:10). It is but another evidence of the purity of purpose of the Prophet Joseph Smith that in establishing a system of government for the church of which he was the presiding officer that he would make himself subject to every law and ordinance of the gospel by which others were also to abide.

The supreme tribunal in the Church is here denominated as the Common Council of the Church. It consists of the First Presidency and twelve high priests chosen by them to assist as counselors. This council has the final word on all matters of controversy that involve the Church or a member’s standing in it. As noted, no one stands above this council. Should the president of the Church transgress, his actions are to be judged by this body. This revelation specifies that in such an instance the council would be presided over by the presiding bishop and, we can only suppose, the Quorum of the Twelve. Their decision is the end of the controversy concerning him.^[75]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 802-803.

D&C 108 A Revelation for Lyman Sherman

Historical Background

Garrett and Robinson give this important information concerning this time in Church History:

By late December 1835, nine months had passed in Kirtland since the great revelation on priesthood, now recorded as Doctrine and Covenants 107, had been received. On the preceding 4 May 1835, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, ordained the previous February, had departed on their first mission.^[76]Smith, History of the Church, 2:222. On 3 July of the same year, Mr. Michael Chandler had come to Kirtland with his Egyptian mummies and the two papyrus scrolls from which Joseph would later translate the book of Abraham.^[77]Smith, History of the Church, 2:235–36; Times and Seasons (1 Feb. 1843): 1; see also Peterson, Pearl of Great Price, 38–41.  In mid-September the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, sustained by the Church the preceding 17 August, was delivered to Kirtland from the bindery in Cleveland, much to the joy of the Saints.^[78]See Woodford, “Doctrine and Covenants,” 6–8.And by Christmas of 1835, work on the Kirtland Temple was nearing completion. In another three months, the Lord’s house would be dedicated. A second term of the School for the Elders had begun in Kirtland on 3 November 1835; it would be moved to the third floor of the temple in January and continue to meet there until the temple dedication.^[79]Backman, Heavens Resound, 268–69.

It was at this time, on the day after Christmas 1835, that Brother Lyman Sherman visited the Prophet Joseph in Kirtland, Ohio. Brother Sherman had been a member of Zion’s Camp and was later called to the First Quorum of Seventy on 28 February 1835, having been set apart as one of the seven presidents of that quorum. Joseph recorded the circumstances of Brother Sherman’s visit to him in Kirtland and the reception of Doctrine and Covenants 108 as follows: “Commenced again studying the Hebrew language^[80]Joseph Smith did not begin his Hebrew studies until the fall of 1835, but it is clear that he and his followers had an interest in the language from the beginning of the movement. This interest often … Continue reading, in company with Brothers Parrish and Williams. In the meantime, Brother Lyman Sherman came in, and requested to have the word of the Lord through me; ‘for,’ said he, ‘I have been wrought upon to make known to you my feelings and desires, and was promised that I should have a revelation which should make known my duty.'”^[81]Smith, History of the Church, 2:345. Doctrine and Covenants 108 is the Lord’s answer to Brother Sherman’s request.

My servant Lyman- D&C 108.1

Garrett and Robinson relate the following:

Lyman Royal Sherman is perhaps one of the lesser-known stalwarts of the Church during the Ohio and Missouri periods. Lyman and his wife Delcena Diadamia Johnson (married 16 Jan. 1829) both were baptized in January 1832, and were faithful. Lyman and Delcena would have six children between the time of their marriage and Lyman’s death just ten years later.

Lyman was, according to his brother-in-law Benjamin Johnson, the person “first known to have spoken in the gift of tongues by the power of God in this dispensation.”^[82]Susan Easton Black, Who’s Who in the Doctrine and Covenants, 261.A faithful participant in Zion’s Camp, Sherman was selected and set apart as one of the seven presidents of the Quorum of the Seventy on 28 February 1835. Since he had previously been ordained a high priest, however, he was eventually released from the First Quorum of the Seventy in April 1837.^[83]Smith, History of the Church, 2:476–78; Ludlow, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 3:1303; Young, History of the Organization of the Seventies, 4–5. Lyman participated in the Kirtland Temple dedication in 1836, and in 1837 was called to the Kirtland High Council. Not only did he serve in the Kirtland High Council, but he was also called to serve on the high council of Far West as well.^[84]He was made a temporary member of the high council in Far West on 13 December 1838. See Revelations of the Restoration, p. 860. On 16 January 1839, Joseph Smith wrote to Sherman from Liberty Jail, calling him to become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Brother Sherman died at the age of thirty-four at Far West on 27 January 1839 before he could be notified of this calling.^[85]Cook, Revelations, 217; Johnson, My Life’s Review, 52–53.

108.4 -The solemn assembly

McConkie and Ostler provide the following: The purpose of a solemn assembly of the Saints is for worship. Joel spoke of the nature of these assemblies: “Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the Lord your God, and cry unto the Lord” (Joel 1:14).

This revelation informed Lyman Sherman that he was to be numbered among the first to receive the endowment. These were those who had proven themselves worthy of such an honor in Zion’s Camp. Preparation for the endowment occupied much of the Church leaders’ time during the early months of 1836. Those selected to participate in this sacred ritual met regularly in the Kirtland Temple during January and February of 1836.

Of these preparations Joseph Smith said: “We must have all things prepared, and call our solemn assembly as the Lord has commanded us, that we may be able to accomplish His great work, and it must be done in God’s own way. The house of the Lord must be prepared, and the solemn assembly called and organized in it, according to the order of the house of God; and in it we must attend to the ordinance of washing of feet. It was never intended for any but official members. It is calculated to unite our hearts, that we may be one in feeling and sentiment, and that our faith may be strong, so that Satan cannot overthrow us, nor have any power over us here.”^[86]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 91.

On Monday, 5 October 1835, the Prophet recorded, “I returned home, being much fatigued from riding in the rain. Spent the remainder of the day in reading and meditation, and in the evening attended a Council of the Twelve Apostles; had a glorious time, and gave them much instruction concerning their duties for time to come; told them that it was the will of God they should take their families to Missouri next season; also this fall to attend the solemn assembly of the first Elders, for the organization of the School of the Prophets; and attend to the ordinance of the washing of feet; and to prepare their hearts in all humility for an endowment with power from on high; to which they all agreed with one accord, and seemed to be greatly rejoiced. May God spare the lives of the Twelve to a good old age, for Christ the Redeemer’s sake. Amen.”^[87]Smith, History of the Church, 2:287; see also 308, 345.

One commentator noted the reason for Lyman’s early death:

(After Lyman was made a high councilor in Far West, Missouri): And there also he suffered the depredations of the savage mob. He succumbed to the vicious attacks and harsh Missouri Winter on January 27, 1839 in Far West, Caldwell County, Missouri, not having been notified in this life that he had been called to the Holy Apostleship and a position among the Twelve. He thus became one of the early martyrs to the restored Gospel.^[88]Grampa Bill’s General Authority Pages, Lyman Royal Sherman, 1804-1839.

His family, left to fend for itself, made its way to Nauvoo, where on January 24, 1846, his faithful wife Delcena Didamia Johnson was sealed to him by proxy for all eternity. His family remained faithful and made the exodus to the Great Basin. Delcena died in 1854 in Salt Lake City.

---