Comments on: John Bio http://bookofmormonresearch.org Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:50:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Frank Jensen http://bookofmormonresearch.org/john-bio#comment-1596 Frank Jensen Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:31:57 +0000 http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/?page_id=529#comment-1596 Dear Mr. Tvedtnes! My name is Frank. I’m a Danish LDS writing a MA at the University of Aalborg, Denmark. The subject of my thesis is the evolution of, and the causes behind, the priesthood ban against Africans. At the moment I’m working on the evolution of the concept of priesthood in the church, and I would like to ask you a couple of questions, if that’s okay. In 1835 Joseph made it clear that there are to orders in the priesthood, The Melchizedek and Aaronic. Later, in 1843, he added a new order, the Patriarchal order. According to Prince Joseph, “… kept the essence of what had been called M. P., renamed it after the patriarchs, and applied the former term to the new order…”, which is the fullness of the (Melchizedek) Priesthood. On 21 Jan. Joseph delivered a sermon where he summarized Elijah mission as the one responsible, “… for all salvific ordinances for the living and the dead.” In another sermon on 10 March he reinforced Elijah’s position and elaborated on the relationship between Elijah and Elias. In these sermons Elias is portrayed as holding the keys of the gospel of Abraham, or in other words the keys of the patriarchal order. Elijah, Joseph says, holds the sealing keys to this order, and also the fullness of the Priesthood and its keys. What I’m trying to understand is the relationship between these two priesthood orders. As far as I know the patriarchal priesthood is today viewed as an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, is it not? Prince seems to say so in that he interprets Joseph 10 March sermon as a return, “… to a bipartite model of priesthood.” I have read this sermon over and over though, and the reason for such a conclusion simply escapes me. In Franklin D. Richards account the power of Elias and Elijah is compared the stones and seal of the temple, but there is still to orders her; patriarchal and Melchizedek, isn’t there? These questions are very important as regarding the theological justification of the priesthood ban since the right to the priesthood is a blessing associated with the patriarchal priesthood, and so with the lineage of Abraham (Abr. 1:2-3). Pharaoh was denied the priesthood on the basis of him being a decedent of Ham (Abr. 1:25-27), and as you mention in your article The Patriarchal Order of Priesthood, “…It has generally been assumed that this passage means that the Egyptians (and, by extension, other descendants of Ham) could not be ordained to the priesthood.” The real question then is witch priesthood Abraham is talking about. In your article you say it’s the patriarchal authority, but it seems to me that, neither Joseph nor Brigham, or any of the early church leaders for that matter, made a distinction between the patriarchal and Melchizedek orders in regards to Africans priesthood eligibility. As far as I know they all accepted the Ham genealogy and, at least from Brigham Young and onwards, used this genealogy as the primary justification for denying Africans ordination to all orders within the priesthood. To me this seems to indicate that the early church understood the Book of Abraham as referring to the priesthood in an ontological sense, and that the two orders are so extremely closely related that Prince is right in assuming that Joseph returned to a bipartite model of priesthood. Since I’m the only one in Denmark that has done any research in LDS church history I haven't talked discussed my theses with anyone, so any commends would be vey appreciated. Sincerely Frank Dear Mr. Tvedtnes!

My name is Frank. I’m a Danish LDS writing a MA at the University of Aalborg, Denmark. The subject of my thesis is the evolution of, and the causes behind, the priesthood ban against Africans. At the moment I’m working on the evolution of the concept of priesthood in the church, and I would like to ask you a couple of questions, if that’s okay.

In 1835 Joseph made it clear that there are to orders in the priesthood, The Melchizedek and Aaronic. Later, in 1843, he added a new order, the Patriarchal order. According to Prince Joseph, “… kept the essence of what had been called M. P., renamed it after the patriarchs, and applied the former term to the new order…”, which is the fullness of the (Melchizedek) Priesthood. On 21 Jan. Joseph delivered a sermon where he summarized Elijah mission as the one responsible, “… for all salvific ordinances for the living and the dead.” In another sermon on 10 March he reinforced Elijah’s position and elaborated on the relationship between Elijah and Elias.

In these sermons Elias is portrayed as holding the keys of the gospel of Abraham, or in other words the keys of the patriarchal order. Elijah, Joseph says, holds the sealing keys to this order, and also the fullness of the Priesthood and its keys.

What I’m trying to understand is the relationship between these two priesthood orders. As far as I know the patriarchal priesthood is today viewed as an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood, is it not? Prince seems to say so in that he interprets Joseph 10 March sermon as a return, “… to a bipartite model of priesthood.” I have read this sermon over and over though, and the reason for such a conclusion simply escapes me. In Franklin D. Richards account the power of Elias and Elijah is compared the stones and seal of the temple, but there is still to orders her; patriarchal and Melchizedek, isn’t there?

These questions are very important as regarding the theological justification of the priesthood ban since the right to the priesthood is a blessing associated with the patriarchal priesthood, and so with the lineage of Abraham (Abr. 1:2-3). Pharaoh was denied the priesthood on the basis of him being a decedent of Ham (Abr. 1:25-27), and as you mention in your article The Patriarchal Order of Priesthood, “…It has generally been assumed that this passage means that the Egyptians (and, by extension, other descendants of Ham) could not be ordained to the priesthood.”

The real question then is witch priesthood Abraham is talking about. In your article you say it’s the patriarchal authority, but it seems to me that, neither Joseph nor Brigham, or any of the early church leaders for that matter, made a distinction between the patriarchal and Melchizedek orders in regards to Africans priesthood eligibility. As far as I know they all accepted the Ham genealogy and, at least from Brigham Young and onwards, used this genealogy as the primary justification for denying Africans ordination to all orders within the priesthood. To me this seems to indicate that the early church understood the Book of Abraham as referring to the priesthood in an ontological sense, and that the two orders are so extremely closely related that Prince is right in assuming that Joseph returned to a bipartite model of priesthood.

Since I’m the only one in Denmark that has done any research in LDS church history I haven’t talked discussed my theses with anyone, so any commends would be vey appreciated.

Sincerely
Frank

]]> By: Richley Crapo http://bookofmormonresearch.org/john-bio#comment-1595 Richley Crapo Sat, 03 Jan 2009 19:11:01 +0000 http://www.bookofmormonresearch.org/?page_id=529#comment-1595 John, I've lost a reference I think you might be acquainted with from Jewish legends. In it, there is reference to the death of Joseph in Egypt and his later burial in Canaan. It says that "he gave his books to his son," (iir the phrase correctly). Do you know where that might be found? Richley Crapo John,
I’ve lost a reference I think you might be acquainted with from Jewish legends. In it, there is reference to the death of Joseph in Egypt and his later burial in Canaan. It says that “he gave his books to his son,” (iir the phrase correctly).

Do you know where that might be found?

Richley Crapo

]]>