{"id":3899,"date":"2016-05-15T08:00:51","date_gmt":"2016-05-15T14:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/?p=3899"},"modified":"2016-05-13T23:20:29","modified_gmt":"2016-05-14T05:20:29","slug":"ces-reply-the-priesthood-and-magic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/ces-reply-the-priesthood-and-magic\/","title":{"rendered":"CES Reply: The Priesthood and Magic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Continuing\u00a0my reply<\/a>\u00a0to Jeremy Runnell\u2019s \u201cLetter to a CES Director,\u201d with Jeremy\u2019s original words in green:<\/p>\n

Priesthood Restoration Concerns & Questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.\u201dLDS Historian Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 75 <\/a>\u2013<\/span><\/p>\n

Are you saying that Richard Bushman believes that these accounts were fabricated? Because Richard Bushman doesn\u2019t believe these accounts were fabricated, and it\u2019s dishonest of you to yank a single sentence out of a paragraph to give the impression that he does.<\/p>\n

The full paragraph:<\/p>\n

The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication. Did Joseph add the stories of angels to embellish his early history and make himself more of a visionary? <\/i>If so, he made little of the occurrence. Cowdery was the first to recount the story of John\u2019s appearance, not Joseph himself. <\/i><\/b>In an 1834 Church newspaper, Cowdery exulted in his still fresh memory of the experience. \u201cOn a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace unto us, while the vail was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the gospel of repentance!\u201d When Joseph described John\u2019s visit, he was much more plainspoken. Moreover, he inserted the story into a history composed in 1838 but not published until 1842. It circulated without fanfare, more like a refurbished memory than a triumphant announcement.<\/i> [Emphasis added]<\/p>\n

1. Like the First Vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith\u2019s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John.<\/span><\/p>\n

And like your error with regard to the First Vision story, you assume that if something wasn\u2019t yet written down in its entirety, that constitutes proof that it was never spoken of or discussed, which is a wholly ridiculous assumption.<\/p>\n

Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nonsense. People were being ordained to the priesthood beginning in 1830. How could they be ordained if Joseph and Oliver made no claim to its restoration? As for the details about Peter, James, and John, actually, only Oliver provided those details in written form in 1834. Joseph didn\u2019t mention anything about this until 1838, as Bushman recounts above. When Joseph did make the claim, it \u201ccirculated without fanfare,\u201d which would be surprising if this were a sensational piece of information that the Saints had never heard before.<\/p>\n

Why did it take five years for Joseph or Oliver to tell members of the Church about the priesthood?
\n<\/span>
\nIt didn\u2019t. Joseph and Oliver announced they had been baptized and ordained the day the Church was organized, and revelations prior to 1834 make reference to their priesthood authority.<\/p>\n

2.Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not teach anyone or record anything prior to 1834 that men ordained to offices in the Church were receiving \u201cpriesthood authority.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s a nonsensical statement. Read Section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, recorded in 1830, which outlines the offices and duties of the priesthood. You\u2019re suggesting that people who were \u201cordained\u201d to be \u201cpriests,\u201d the quoted words being used in the revelation, didn\u2019t realize they had priesthood authority? What kind of priest has no priesthood?<\/p>\n

Also, look at the Book of Mormon. Alma 13 described priesthood authority in great detail, and there are several other references to priesthood throughout the book. The Book of Mormon was also published in 1830.<\/p>\n

3. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery changed the wording of earlier revelations when they compiled the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, adding verses about the appearances of John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John as if those appearances were mentioned in the earlier revelations in the Book of Commandments, which they weren\u2019t.<\/span><\/p>\n

And, as mentioned earlier, Joseph changed the wording of several verses in the Book of Mormon after it was first published. He edited a number of his revelations over the course of his life. That\u2019s actually the very nature of the Restoration \u2013 we do not believe in inerrant prophets or in inerrant scripture, and, unlike Catholics or Protestants who believe in a closed canon, we believe more light and knowledge is always welcome.<\/p>\n

4.Were the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist recorded in the Church prior to 1833, it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments.
\n<\/span>
\nReally? Why? The First Vision was recorded in 1832. Why doesn\u2019t it appear in the Book of Commandments? Isn\u2019t a visit from the Lord a bigger deal than a visit from John the Baptist?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not recorded anywhere in the Book of Commandments.<\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no biographical info at all recorded in the Book of Commandments. This was not a book used to establish Joseph\u2019s authority; it was a book used to catalogue revelations of direct relevance to the early members of the Church. That\u2019s why several early revelations didn\u2019t make the cut.<\/p>\n

Were the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood under the hands of Peter, James, and John recorded prior to 1833, it would have appeared in the Book of Commandments.\u00a0 It\u2019s not recorded anywhere in the Book of Commandments.<\/span><\/p>\n

Look at the New Testament. How many times do the apostles make reference to Jesus\u2019s biography in their epistles? How many times do they mention the Virgin Birth, or his baptism at the hands of John the Baptist, or the keys he received from Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration? Precisely zero times. Epistles, like the Book of Commandments, were written directly to believers who already accepted the authority of the people writing to them.<\/p>\n

5.It wasn\u2019t until the 1835 edition Doctrine & Covenants that Joseph and Oliver backdated and retrofitted Priesthood restoration events to an 1829-30 time period \u2013 none of which existed in any previous Church records; including Doctrine & Covenants\u2019 precursor, The Book of Commandments, nor the original Church history as published in The Evening and Morning Star.<\/span><\/p>\n

For them to be \u201cbackdating and retrofitting\u201d events, they would have to be correcting an erroneous record. There\u2019s no alternative record of different priesthood restoration events, so no \u201cretrofit\u201d was necessary. Members of the Church were well acquainted with the priesthood by 1835, so they obviously believed it came from somewhere before Joseph and Oliver got around to writing down the details. If Joseph and Oliver were suddenly making it all up five years after the fact, members would have likely noticed. The fact that Joseph, in particular, is relatively casual about the whole thing until 1838 is clear evidence that this was not a new story to the Saints.<\/p>\n

6.David Whitmer, one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, had this to say about the Priesthood restoration:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI never heard that an Angel had ordained Joseph and Oliver to the Aaronic Priesthood until the year 1834[,] [183]5, or [183]6 \u2013 in Ohio\u2026I do not believe that John the Baptist ever ordained Joseph and Oliver\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2013 Early Mormon Documents, 5:137<\/span><\/p>\n

Whitmer himself was given priesthood authority in 1829, as referenced in a contemporaneous revelation recorded in D&C 18:9<\/a>. He didn\u2019t doubt the veracity of that authority while he was a member of the Church. Only decades later, when he was severely disaffected from Joseph Smith, does he begin to criticize the details.<\/p>\n

Witnesses Concerns & Questions:<\/span><\/p>\n

1.The testimony of the Three and Eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon is a key part to the testimonies of many members of the Church. Some even base their testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon on these 11 witnesses and their testimonies.<\/span><\/p>\n

If they do, then they\u2019re not following the instructions of the Book of Mormon itself, which counsels members to base their testimonies in the witness of the Holy Ghost. That\u2019s not to discount the value of the testimony of these 11 witnesses, which are remarkably consistent and reliable, but rather to emphasize that this kind of evidence ought to confirm faith rather than establish it.<\/p>\n

As a missionary, I was instructed to teach investigators about the testimonies of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon as part of boosting the book\u2019s credibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

When did you serve your mission? None of the six discussions I taught made any reference to Book of Mormon witnesses, although I\u2019m older than you, and they\u2019ve changed the discussions since. I\u2019d be surprised, however, if these testimonies were actually included in the prescribed lessons to be taught to investigators.<\/p>\n

There are several critical problems for relying and betting on these 19th century men as credible witnesses.<\/span><\/p>\n

The problems you proceed to enumerate are based largely on the premise that these people are, in fact \u201c19th century men\u201d who believed things common to many 19th century men. How could the Book of Mormon have had any witnesses who were not \u201c19th century men,\u201d given that it came forth in the 19th Century?<\/p>\n

2. Magical Worldview: In order to truly understand the Book of Mormon witnesses and the issues, one must understand the magical worldview of people in early 19th century New England. These are people who believed in folk magic, divining rods, visions, second sight, peep stones in hats, treasure hunting (money digging or glass looking), and so on.<\/span><\/p>\n

Your point being? People then \u2013 and people now \u2013 believed and believe in a number of harmless superstitions. Why does this disqualify them from being instruments in the hands of the Lord? The evidence suggests that belief in folk magic left Joseph and Oliver open to the idea of genuine revelation.<\/p>\n

Many people believed in buried treasure, the ability to see spirits and their dwelling places within the local hills and elsewhere. This is why treasure digging existed.\u2028\u2028<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes! Treasure digging existed because people believed in buried treasure. \u2028Seems a bit obvious.<\/p>\n

Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother (Hyrum) had a family business treasure hunting from 1820 \u2013 1827.\u2028\u2028<\/span><\/p>\n

No, they didn\u2019t. Joseph Smith, his father, and his brother (Hyrum) had a family business called a \u201cfarm.\u201d Check the tax records.<\/p>\n

Joseph was hired by folks like Josiah Stowell, who Joseph mentions in his history.\u2028\u2028<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s kind of disingenuous to say that \u201cJoseph was hired by folks like Josiah Stowell\u201d when we only have record of Joseph being hired by one \u201cfolk\u201d \u2013 i.e. Josiah Stowell. If you can produce other clients for this non-existent treasure hunting business, that would bolster your case considerably. \u2028\u2028As for Josiah Stowell, Joseph worked for him for less than a month digging for silver with no success, until he \u201cfinally\u2026 prevailed with the old gentleman to cease digging after it.\u201d (JS-H 1:56.) Hardly a long-term career pursuit.<\/p>\n

In 1826, Joseph was arrested and brought to court in Bainbridge, New York, for trial on fraud.<\/span><\/p>\n

Joseph was neither arrested nor brought to trial. He was called to appear at a preliminary hearing on the matter of being a \u201cdisorderly person,\u201d and the hearing was dismissed with no charges filed. The matter was so insignificant that it was never raised again, even as Joseph was forced to confront a host of other far more serious legal charges throughout his life.<\/p>\n

He was arrested on the complaint of Stowell\u2019s nephew who accused Joseph of being a \u201cdisorderly person and an imposter.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The word \u201carrested\u201d has a specific meaning that implies Joseph was taken into custody, which he was not. The word first appears in an 1877 anti-Mormon account half a century later, but there is reason to assume this is hyperbole. There\u2019s no record that Joseph went to jail. The judge considered the accusation baseless, and the matter was quickly dismissed.<\/p>\n

It would not be unusual for a neighbor, friend, or even a stranger to come up to you and\u00a0say, \u201cI received a vision of the Lord!\u201d and for you to respond, \u201cWhat did the Lord say?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

It would also not be unusual for a neighbor, friend, or even a stranger to say \u201cDoes anyone know what we\u2019re having for dinner?\u201d I don\u2019t get your point here, or how it in any way discredits anybody of anything.<\/p>\n

This is one of the reasons why 21st century Mormons, once including myself, are so confused and bewildered when hearing stuff like Joseph Smith using a peep stone in a hat or Oliver Cowdery using a divining rod or dowsing rod such as illustrated below:<\/p>\n

\"rod\"<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

I, too, am a 21st<\/sup> Century Mormon, and I find this neither confusing nor bewildering. I find it evidence that Joseph and Oliver lived in a different place and time and believed in harmless superstitions that were common to their era.<\/p>\n

My wife was a missionary in Chile. In almost every home she visited, including homes of Church members, people had an inflated brown paper bag in the center of the main living area, because they were convinced that the bag kept bugs away. They also chastised her for drinking cold drinks on a hot day, or hot drinks on a cold day, as they insisted that would make a person \u201cchueca,\u201d which roughly translates as \u201ccrooked.\u201d Both of these ideas have no factual basis and are firmly in the realm of superstition, yet members who believe them don\u2019t get denied temple recommends.<\/p>\n

The above divining rod is mentioned in the scriptures.\u00a0 In Doctrine & Covenants 8, the following heading provides context for the discussion:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cRevelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829.\u00a0 In the course of the translation of the Book of Mormon, Oliver, who continued to serve as scribe, writing at the Prophet\u2019s dictation, desired to be endowed with the gift of translation.\u00a0 The Lord responded to his supplication by granting this revelation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The revelation states, in relevant part:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
      \n
    1. Now this is not all they gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things;<\/span><\/li>\n
    2. Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you.<\/span><\/li>\n
    3. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God.<\/span><\/li>\n
    4. And, therefore, whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, that I will grant unto you, and you shall have knowledge concerning it.<\/span><\/li>\n
    5. Remember that without faith you can do nothing; therefore ask in faith.\u00a0 Trifle not with these things; do not ask for that which you ought not.<\/span><\/li>\n
    6. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate and receive knowledge from all those ancient records which have been hid up, that are sacred; and according to your faith shall it be done unto you.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/ol>\n

      (D&C 8:6-11<\/a>, emphasis added)<\/span><\/p>\n

      From the D&C 8 account, we don\u2019t really know much about what exactly the \u201cgift of Aaron\u201d is that Oliver Cowdery received.\u00a0 What is \u201cthe gift of Aaron\u201d?\u00a0 The text provides several clues:<\/span><\/p>\n