By Sandra Tanner

In the February 2004 Ensign LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley laid out the four cornerstones of Mormonism. The first is Jesus Christ and his plan of salvation, second is Joseph Smith’s first vision, third is the Book of Mormon and fourth is priesthood authority.

The LDS Church claims that those holding its priesthood are the only ones recognized by God to perform baptisms and ordinances of the gospel. Mormonism rejects baptisms done by any other church. The LDS manual Doctrines of the Gospel explains:

What is the [LDS] Priesthood? It is nothing more nor less than the power of God delegated to man by which man can . . . act legitimately; not assuming that authority, nor borrowing it from generations that are dead and gone, . . . (Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 231 and 232, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1986, p. 67)

The LDS Church teaches that this authority must be acquired by the proper means. In Doctrines of the Gospel we read that every priesthood act must be done “in the proper way, and after the proper order” (p. 68).

This raises the question of whether or not Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were baptized and ordained by proper “priesthood authority” in the “proper way,” in the first place? Joseph Smith’s account of the event is published in the Pearl of Great Price:

We [Smith and Cowdery] still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the [Book of Mormon] plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:

Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded. . . . It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.
(Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:68-71)

[Bold in quotes added for emphasis and does not appear in the originals.]

How could the angel, elsewhere identified as John the Baptist, ordain them to the priesthood before they were baptized? According to LDS doctrine today, a man must be baptized by someone holding the LDS priesthood authority before he can be ordained to the priesthood.

If John the Baptist’s ordination was valid, why did Joseph and Oliver need to baptize each other and then re-ordain each other to the same priesthood? Why wouldn’t the angel baptize them first and then ordain them?

Researcher Hal Hougey observed:

This absurd and contradictory account could have been completely avoided if Joseph Smith had simply said that the angel first baptized them, and then conferred the priesthood on them. And this is what he would have said if the story were true. Why, then, did he give us the account we have? It seems likely that the part about the angel is simply an embellishment later added to what actually occurred. Joseph and Oliver were about to start a church. In order to get the people to listen to their claims, it would be advisable for them to be baptized and ordained. Since they did not want to go to any existing church for these credentials, they proceeded to give them to each other. Read the account, leaving out the part about the angel, and one has a believable narrative of what two men might do to create credentials for themselves as ministers of God. (Latter-Day Saints— Where Did You Get Your Authority? [PDF] by Hal Hougey, Pacific Publishing Co., 1969, p. 4)

Merrill J. Bateman, one of the top leaders in the LDS Church, emphasized the necessity of restoring proper priesthood authority to Joseph Smith:

One of the remarkable evidences of the Restoration is the testimony of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery regarding the manner in which the priesthood and its directing powers were returned to earth. . . . John the Baptist brought back the Aaronic Priesthood with the keys of repentance and baptism. Peter, James, and John restored not only the Melchizedek Priesthood but also “the keys of [the] kingdom.” . . .

Near the end of His ministry, Jesus promised Peter “the keys of the kingdom,” knowing that Jesus would soon leave and that priesthood keys were needed by the Apostles if they were to direct the work after His ascension. . . .

In contrast, 19th-century ministers in the Palmyra environs, not understanding the great Apostasy that had taken place, believed in an entirely different process for priesthood reception. They believed that the power to preach came through an inner calling to a priesthood of believers. (“Priesthood, Keys, and the Power to Bless,” Ensign, Nov. 2003, p. 50)

If such keys were needed why didn’t Peter, James and John restore both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods? Mormonism claims that they held the authority for both. Why would John the Baptist need to come at all?

When Did it Happen?

In his story printed at the back of the Pearl of Great Price Joseph Smith stated that on May 15, 1829, the Aaronic Priesthood was conferred on him and Oliver Cowdery. Yet there is no date given for his ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, shows that there is real confusion as to when Peter, James and John supposedly appeared. The footnote on p. 61 states:

. . . before the 6th of April, 1830, and probably before that very month of June, 1829, had expired Peter, James and John had come and conferred upon Joseph and Oliver the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood, . . .
(History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 61)

Historian D. Michael Quinn explained:

According to current tradition, both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods functioned in the church after the spring of 1829 when Smith and Cowdery were visited first by John the Baptist, who restored the lesser or Aaronic priesthood, and then by Peter, James, and John, who restored the higher or Melchizedek priesthood. A closer look at contemporary records indicates that men were first ordained to the higher priesthood over a year after the church’s founding. No mention of angelic ordinations can be found in original documents until 1834-35. Thereafter accounts of the visit of Peter, James, and John by Cowdery and Smith remained vague and contradictory. (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, by D. Michael Quinn, Signature Books, 1994, p. 15)

If Joseph Smith could name the specific date when the Aaronic Priesthood was restored why didn’t he give the date for the Melchizedek Priesthood ordination?

The earliest historical documents show that the concept of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were products of Joseph Smith’s evolving theology and were not taught prior to 1831. Historian Dan Vogel commented:

The early Mormon understanding of restored authority evolved as the events of the restoration unfolded. . . . Only gradually did Mormonism’s description of apostasy, restoration, and authority become clearly lineal-legal. In addition, the concepts of “two orders of priesthood” and “lineal priesthood” were not introduced into Mormonism until after its founding. . . .

Indeed, nothing in the Book of Mormon stipulates a lineal-legal notion of authority. The Book of Mormon’s description of the apostasy did not include the charge that the latter-day clergy lacked priesthood authority. Rather, it indicted them with religious hypocrisy and spiritual poverty. Similarly, the Book of Mormon’s description of the restoration included no promise of the return of priesthood authority but rather of spiritual renewal. (Religious Seekers and the Advent of Mormonism, by Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1988, pp. 101-102)

Mormonism maintains that when John the Baptist appeared to Smith and Cowdery in 1829 they received the Aaronic Priesthood, which included the offices of deacon, teacher, and priest. When Peter, James and John supposedly appeared a short while later, they conferred on Smith and Cowdery the Melchizedek Priesthood, which included the offices of elder, seventy, High Priest, Bishop, Patriarch, Apostle and Prophet.

While one can find mention of such offices as elder or teacher in early LDS documents, these were not considered part of a larger priesthood system such as Melchizedek or Aaronic. Smith seems to have initially used these designations in the same way that other churches of the day would have used such terms.

High Priesthood Added

People reading the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants assume that the revelations read the same as they were originally printed. However, there have been important revisions relating to priesthood.

The first printing of Smith’s revelations in book form was in 1833, in a work titled Book of Commandments. Later, in 1835, a new edition was prepared, changing many of the original revelations and adding new ones. The title was also changed to Doctrine and Covenants.

Chapter 24 of the 1833 Book of Commandments gave instructions about elders, priests, teachers and deacons but made no mention of two priesthoods. When this revelation was reprinted in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (section 20 of the current edition) dozens of words were added to the text to include such offices as high counselors, high priests and high priesthood. Researcher H. Michael Marquardt commented:

In the Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ [Book of Commandments, chapter 24] is listed the following offices in the church: elder, priest, teacher, and deacon. The Articles and Covenants were read and received by a vote of the congregation at the first church conference on 9 June 1830 at Fayette, New York. At this time some men had been ordained to three of the four offices: elder, priest, and teacher. It was prior to 25 October 1831 when the first known deacons were ordained. As the church grew, additional offices or callings became part of the ecclesiastical structure. By 1835 it was felt necessary to add these offices to the Articles and Covenants, though such a step created an anachronism.
(The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, by H. Michael Marquardt, Signature Books, 1999, pp. 67-68)

The revisions were made in the 1835 printing of the Doctrine and Covenants. Below is a photo of part of chapter 24 of the Book of Commandments (now section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants) with the revisions noted in the margins.

LDS historian Gregory A. Prince wrote:

Although in the Mormon church today the term “priesthood” refers to this bestowed authority, such a relationship did not develop until years after the founding of the church. Initially authority was understood to be inherent in what are now termed “offices.” Three offices— elder, priest, and teacher—were present by August 1829, as were the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, and ordination, but the word “priesthood” was not used in reference to these for another three years. (Power From On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood, by Gregory A. Prince, Signature Books, 1995, p. 2)

Prince explained that while the Book of Mormon contains references to “higher authority” they were not understood in terms of “priesthood.” He concluded:

It was not until several months after the June 1831 general conference, when the “high priesthood” was conferred, that the term “priesthood” entered Mormon usage at all. (Power From On High, p. 12)

Thus we see that at the time of the founding of Mormonism in 1830 there was no teaching or awareness of Joseph Smith claiming to have received either the Aaronic Priesthood or the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829.

Other Revelations Changed

Another example of the changes can be found by comparing the current Doctrine and Covenants, Section 27, dated August 1830, with the 1833 printing of this revelation in the Book of Commandments. The current version mentions John the Baptist and Peter, James and John, but the 1833 edition (chapter 28 of the Book of Commandments) did not contain any mention of priesthood restoration.

Below is a photo of chapter 28 of the Book of Commandments (now section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants) with the revisions noted in the margins. Note the interpolation of priesthood concepts.

Also, sections 2 and 13 of the current Doctrine and Covenants, which mention priesthood, were not printed in the 1833 Book of Commandments. They were extracted from Joseph Smith’s history, started in 1838, and added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876.

As Joseph Smith’s church began to grow so did the need for clearer delineation of authority, thus the backdating and insertion of priesthood claims into the revelations. David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, related the following concerning the addition of priesthood concepts:

Authority is the word we used for the first two years in the church . . . This matter of two orders of priesthood in the Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in the church, all originated in the mind of Sydney Rigdon. . . . This is the way the High Priests and the “priesthood” as you have it, was introduced into the Church of Christ almost two years after its beginning—and after we had baptized and confirmed about two thousand souls into the church. (An Address To All Believers in Christ, by David Whitmer, 1887, p. 64. [PDF])

Whitmer also condemned the LDS leaders for endorsing the rewriting of Smith’s revelations between their first printing in the Book of Commandments in 1833 and the second printing in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835.

You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day . . . to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. (An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 49)

In H. Michael Marquardt’s study, The Joseph Smith’s Revelations: Text & Commentary, we read:

In recent years there has been a growing willingness on the part of some writers to admit the existence of variant readings of the early revelations. Part of this openness responds to the criticisms of some early rank-and-file members who harbored grievances against church leaders, including charges of textual revision. . . . Jonathan B. Turner in his 1842 book [Mormonism in All Ages] also dealt with changes in the 1835 D&C:

It would have been well for the world if Smith’s divinity, instead of giving him a pair of spectacles, had given him a divine printer, and a divine press, and such types that he might have been enabled to fix the meaning of his inspired revelations, so that it would be possible to let them stand, at least two years, without abstracting, interpolating, altering, or garbling, to suit the times. But the ways of Smith’s providence are indeed mysterious.

(The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, by H. Michael Marquadt, Signature Books, 1999, p. 18)

Below, the reader can see another example of such rewriting. In 1834 the LDS newspaper, Evening and Morning Star, printed an 1831 revelation which differs significantly from the current version known as section 68 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Again, we see the addition of priesthood material.

Researcher LaMar Petersen concluded:

The student would expect to find all the particulars of the restoration in this first treasured set of revelations [the 1833 Book of Commandments], the chronological order of which encompassed the bestowals of the two Priesthoods, but they are conspicuously absent. . . . The notable revelations on priesthood in the Doctrine and Covenants before referred to—Sections 2 and 13—are missing, and Chapter 28 gives no hint of the restoration which, if actual, had been known for four years. More than four hundred words were added to this revelation of September 1830 in Section 27 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the additions made to include the names of heavenly visitors and two separate ordinations. The Book of Commandments gives the duties of Elders, Priests, Teachers, and Deacons and refers to Joseph’s apostolic calling, but there is no mention of Melchizedek Priesthood, High Priesthood, High Priests, nor High Councilors. These words were later inserted into the revelation on church organization and government given in 1830, making it appear that they were known at that date, but they do not appear in the original, Chapter 24 of the 1833 Book of Commandments. Similar interpolations were made in the revelations now known as Sections 42 and 68.

There seems to be no support for the historicity of the restoration of the priesthood in journals, diaries, letters, nor printed matter prior to October 1834.
(The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry, by La Mar Petersen, Freethinker Press, 2000, p. 145)

---

Priesthood and the Bible

In the sixth Article of Faith of the LDS Church we read:

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, viz., apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc. (Pearl of Great Price, Articles of Faith, 1:6)

The LDS Church has two divisions of priesthood, Aaronic and Melchizedek. The LDS manual Gospel Principles states:

The greater priesthood is the Melchizedek Priesthood. . . . The lesser [Aaronic] priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. (p. 85)

Further on the manual explains:

The offices in the Aaronic Priesthood are deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop. (p. 81)

The offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood are elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch, and apostle. (p. 82)

Since the Mormon Church makes the specific claim that their priesthood is the same as the New Testament church we need to compare their offices with those mentioned in the Bible.

Aaronic Priesthood

The Aaronic priesthood of the Old Testament was restricted to Aaron’s descendants, who were of the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:1-10, 8:5-22; Exodus 38:21). Mormons do not claim to be descended from Aaron. Many of them believe they are from the tribe of Ephraim but this would not make them eligible for the Aaronic priesthood.

Even Jesus could not hold the Aaronic priesthood because he descended from the tribe of Judah. Hebrews 7:14 explains: “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.”

The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ. In Hebrews 7:11-12 we read:

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Deacons

God set the minimum age of the Aaronic priesthood at twenty-five (Numbers 8:23-25), and there were only priests and high priests. The Old Testament has no mention of deacons. The LDS Church ordains young men deacons, their first office in the Aaronic priesthood, at the age of twelve. The New Testament, however, states deacons are to be mature men and “the husbands of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:8-12).

Teachers

As part of the Aaronic Priesthood in the LDS Church a young man is ordained a Teacher at the age of fourteen. (This office is separate from the assignment of teaching a class such as Sunday School.) The New Testament passages about teachers do not make them part of a special priesthood. Teachers should be mature Christians “able to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2), not teenagers.

Priests

In the LDS Church a young man is ordained a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood at the age of sixteen and does not need to be a descendant of Aaron. This was never done in the Old Testament. There are Jewish priests mentioned in the New Testament, but an office of priest is never mentioned in the Christian church.

Melchizedek Priesthood

Melchizedek is mentioned in Genesis 14:17-20 as the King of Salem (Jerusalem) and priest of God who blessed Abraham. In Psalm 110:4, a promise was given that his priesthood would be forever. That promise was fulfilled in Jesus Christ as indicated in chapters five through seven of Hebrews where Melchizedek is identified as a type of Christ. Christ is the only one “after the order of Melchisedec.” In the Book of Hebrews we read:

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec . . . Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. . . . But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. (Hebrews 5:9, 10; 7:16, 24)

The only Christian priesthood mentioned in the New Testament is the spiritual priesthood of every believer. Peter wrote:

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. . . . But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. (1 Peter 2:5-9)

Notice that men are not singled out as the only ones holding this priesthood. It is for every Christian.

Elders and Bishops

In Mormonism, a man is ordained an elder upon entering the Melchizedek Priesthood. While the New Testament mentions elders (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5-6; 1 Peter 5:1-3), they are never referred to as part of a priesthood system. In 1 Timothy 3:1 and Titus 1:7 the word bishop appears in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. But in the New International Version (NIV) it is translated overseer. A bishop is not a separate office in the church but a continuation of Paul’s instructions about elders.

When Paul gave instructions to Timothy about leadership he did not mention anything about ordaining men to either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods. Instead, the emphasis was on choosing mature Christians:

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Seventy

In the LDS Church a Seventy is a specific office in their Melchizedek Priesthood. He is a type of missionary and overseer of a given area of the church (D&C 107:25). Joseph Smith evidently read about Christ sending out seventy men in Luke 10:1 (KJV; The NIV Bible gives it as seventy-two) and turned this event into an ordination of men into a specific office of the priesthood. However, there is no mention in the New Testament of anyone ever being appointed to be a replacement of any of these men. Surely if such an office was to be part of the church it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts or in Paul’s letters.

High Priest

While there are thousands of High Priests in the LDS Church, there was only one Jewish High Priest at a time. The High Priest was part of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Hebrews 5:1 explains that the duties of the Jewish High Priest were to “offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins.” Mormon High Priests do not offer any sacrifices so they are not following the Old Testament pattern. The Jewish High Priest served as an “example and shadow of heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5).

Christ fulfilled this “when he offered up himself” (Hebrews 7:22-27). He is the only High Priest in the Christian church. Because Christ lives forever his priesthood can never pass to another. There are no references in the New Testament to any Christian holding the office of High Priest.

Pastors

Mormons will often use Ephesians 4:11 when trying to prove their system of priesthood. This verse reads: “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.” The LDS Church, however, does not have any pastors. One of their apostles explained, “The term pastor does not refer to an order in the priesthood, like deacon, priest, elder . . . a bishop is a pastor; so is an elder who has charge of a branch . . .” (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, vol. 3, Bookcraft, 1956, pp. 108-109).

It is strange that the Mormons insist the words apostles and teachers are specific offices of the priesthood, but do not believe that pastor or evangelist are priesthood offices.

Evangelist or Patriarch?

Ephesians 4:11 mentions evangelists yet there is no such office in the Mormon Church. Instead, they claim that the original meaning has been lost and that an evangelist is supposed to be a patriarch. Joseph Fielding Smith explained: “An evangelist is a patriarch . . . The Patriarch to the Church holds the keys of blessing for the members of the Church” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 108, 170).

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie claimed:

Having lost the true knowledge of the priesthood and its offices, . . . the false traditions of the sectarian world have applied the designation evangelist to traveling preachers, missionaries, and revivalists. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 242)

There is no evidence that the Greek word for evangelist ever carried the meaning of patriarch. The Greek word translated evangelist carries the meaning of someone who proclaims the good news, not one who gives prayer blessings to church members.

In the LDS Church a patriarch gives a blessing to a member as a sort of spiritual blueprint for his/her life (D&C 107:39-56).

Apostles and Prophets

In Mormonism the president of the church is considered a prophet and apostle. LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:

Apostles and prophets are the foundation upon which the organization of the true Church rests. (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce R. McConkie, Bookcraft, 1966 edition, p. 606)

In trying to establish the need for apostles and prophets in the church Mormons appeal to 1 Corinthians 12:28:

And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

However, if one reads the entire section from verse 27 to verse 31 it is obvious that Paul is discussing various ministries or gifts in the early church, not listing specific offices of priesthood.

After Judas betrayed Christ there was one man chosen to replace him as part of the twelve apostles (Acts 1:21-23). To qualify for this position the person had to be an eyewitness to the full ministry of Jesus, including his resurrection. There is no evidence in the New Testament that anyone else was chosen to replace one of the twelve. Due to the requirements given in Acts apostles could not continue after the first generation of Christians.

Notice also that Paul lists apostles first and prophets second. In Mormonism the highest calling is the prophet of the church with the apostles serving under him. Also in Mormonism the office of teacher is bestowed on fourteen-year-old boys, not a man third in rank to the prophet and apostles.

Another problem for the LDS position is the concept of having three apostles in its First Presidency that oversees the Twelve Apostles. This adds up to fifteen apostles and is not the same as Jesus’ twelve apostles. If Mormonism is going to insist that the church today must be set up exactly as it was under Christ then they have too many apostles. The Mormons cannot have it both ways. Either they are a “restoration” that is exactly like the New Testament church or they are setting up something different from the early Christian church.

Conclusion

Thus we see that beside the problems with the historical claims of LDS priesthood restoration, Mormon priesthood concepts are not in accord with the New Testament. If they want to truly follow the New Testament model they will need to renounce their claims to Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods.

---

---

---