By Sandra Tanner

One of the major claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it is the only true church, with the only authority to act in God’s name. Mormonism has a lay priesthood, its leaders are not trained in theology or biblical languages, but are usually businessmen advanced due to faithful church service. In the fifth and sixth Articles of Faith of the LDS Church we read:

5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.¹

The LDS Church believes that God removed His priesthood authority from earth shortly after the death of Christ’s apostles. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we read:

LDS rejection of much post biblical Christianity is based on belief in an ancient apostasy . . . Apostolic authority ceased just after the New Testament period, and without apostolic leadership and authority the Church was soon overwhelmed by alien intellectual and cultural pressures.²

But one wonders how the early church could go astray so quickly and priesthood be lost? Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 that “the gates of hell” would not prevail against his church. Also, according to Joseph Smith, four of Christ’s disciples did not die but have been left on earth to do missionary work. These include the Apostle John and three Book of Mormon disciples.

According to the Doctrine and Covenants, John, the apostle, was transformed and Jesus left him on earth to do evangelism. Joseph Smith claimed to receive by revelation the following information about John:

And the Lord said unto me: John my beloved, what desirest thou? . . . And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people.³

Evidently Joseph Smith misinterpreted John 21:20- 23. Jesus did not say that John would remain alive, but merely pointed out to Peter that John’s future mission was not Peter’s concern. The Book of Mormon also teaches that three Nephites, Jesus’ disciples in the New World, did not taste of death but were transformed and would remain on earth to do evangelism. (See 3 Nephi, chapter 28.) LDS Apostle Jeffrey Holland explained the role of the three Nephites in our day:

These three Nephites continue in their translated state today, just as when they went throughout the lands of Nephi. . . . they are yet ministering to Jew, Gentile, and the scattered tribes of Israel, even all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.⁴

How could there have been a total apostasy, as asserted by the LDS Church, if there have been four apostles on the earth since the time of Christ? Why wouldn’t they have been able to ordain future apostles and keep the church from falling into a total apostasy?

Necessity of Priesthood

In the February 2004 issue of the 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, eternal marriages 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, . . .⁵

Marvin Cowan explained how the Mormons misuse John 15:16 in their effort to prove their priesthood “ordination” claims:

In support of their priesthood doctrine, LDS often quote part of John 15:16, where Jesus said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you.” LDS claim that Jesus was speaking about the priesthood, but priesthood is not mentioned in this context or anywhere in any of the four gospels! This verse says “ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit . . .”

Neither John 15:16 nor any other New Testament verse says that Jesus laid His hands on the disciples and ordained them to the priesthood, but LDS claim that is what the word “ordain” means. However, D. & C. 89:14 says, “all grain is ordained for the use of man and of beast.” Did someone lay hands on the grain and give it the Priesthood? Obviously that is not the meaning of “ordain.” While it is possible for someone to be ordained by “laying on of hands,” that word really means to “appoint” or “point out.” D. & C. 89 also mentions that herbs and flesh of beasts and fowls are “ordained for the use of man.” Thus, even LDS scripture shows that “ordained” means “appointed,” not lay hands on to give some priesthood office.

The LDS also use Hebrews 5:4 to support their doctrine of an ordained priesthood. It says, “No man taketh this honor unto himself but he that is called of God as was Aaron.” Then they claim that Aaron was called by Moses in Exodus 28:1. But, neither Heb. 5:4 nor Ex. 28:1 say anything about “laying on of hands or “ordaining” anything. Heb. 5:4 says, “called of God,” not “called by Moses” or “called by laying on of hands” as LDS interpret it. Ex. 4:27 declares, “The Lord said unto Aaron . . .” which shows that Aaron was called by the Lord, not Moses. In Numbers 18:7 the Lord said to Aaron, “I have given your priests office unto you . . .” Even in D. & C. 132:59, the Lord says, “Verily if a man be called of my Father as was Aaron, by my own voice and by the voice of Him that sent me and I have endowed him with the keys of the power of this priesthood . . .”

Notice that LDS scripture says Aaron and those with LDS priesthood were called by the “voice” of God, not by laying on of hands! Neither Aaron nor anyone else was ever ordained to the Aaronic priest’s office in the Old Testament. The only “priests” who were ordained in the Old Testament were idolatrous priests (II Kings 23:5; II Chronicles 11:15)! Aaron was “anointed” (Ex. 40:13), but so was the tabernacle and everything in it (Ex. 40:9-15). Therefore, this “anointing” was not the “laying on of hands” to give the priesthood, unless the tabernacle and everything in it were also ordained to the priesthood! A good concordance will show that many other things in the Old Testament were “ordained,” but the priests who served God were not!⁶

“The Proper Order”

The LDS Church teaches that priesthood 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.”⁷

This raises the question as whether or not Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were baptized and ordained by proper “priesthood authority” in the “proper way”? Joseph Smith’s account of the event is published at the back of the Pearl of Great Price. In it Smith relates that while working on the translation of the Book of Mormon in May of 1829, he and Oliver Cowdery became concerned about baptism and went out into the woods to pray:

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?

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.” . . .

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.⁹

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

When Did It Happen?

If Peter, James and John conferred the priesthood on Joseph and Oliver, 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. While Smith is confident on the date for the Aaronic Priesthood, 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.

. . . 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, . . .¹⁰

Today the LDS church maintains that after the spring of 1829 both priesthoods were functioning in the church. However, the earliest LDS historical documents show that the concept of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods were not taught prior to 1831 but were products of Joseph Smith’s evolving theology. Historian D. Michael Quinn explained:

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.¹¹

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 the designations of elders and teachers in the same way that other churches of the day would have used such terms.

Two Priesthoods 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. Researcher John Farkas observed:

There are seven revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants . . . on these priesthoods. Although five of them were allegedly received before October 1832, one as early as 1823, and one as late as September 1832, none of these five were included in the 1833 Book of Commandments. Two of them did not show up in the D&C until the 1876 edition, three were first included the 1835 edition.¹²

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 (which is section 20 in a current edition) dozens of words were added to the text to include such offices as high counselors, high priests and high priesthood. Below is a photo of part of chapter 24 of the 1833 Book of Commandments (now section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants) with the revisions noted in the margins.

Another example of changing Smith’s revelations to support his later priesthood ideas is seen in a comparison of Chapter 28 in the 1833 Book of Commandments and the current Doctrine and Covenants, section 27. Joseph Smith made these additions in 1835 to support his new claim of receiving priesthood from Peter, James and John. The original 1833 printing of the revelation did not contain any mention of priesthood restoration.

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.¹³

Prince goes on to explain 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.¹⁴

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.

Another example of changing revelations to include Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood information is seen by comparing Smith’s 1831 revelation, which was printed in 1832 in the church newspaper, The Evening and Morning Star, with the current version in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 68. (Click photo below to view.)

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, which wasn’t started until 1838, and were not added to the Doctrine and Covenants until 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.¹⁵

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. Whitmer wrote:

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.¹⁶

In recent years the LDS church has been more open about the textual revisions in Smith’s revelations. Yet they continue to insist that the priesthood was restored in 1829. If the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods were a part of the church prior to the printing of the 1833 Book of Commandments it certainly seems strange that it contains no such teaching.

Researcher LaMar Petersen concluded:

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 1834.¹⁷

LDS Priesthood Offices

The LDS Church priesthood is divided into two groups, Aaronic and Melchizedek. Below is a list of the various offices:

Since the LDS Church makes the specific claim that their priesthood is the same as in the Bible we need to compare their offices with those mentioned in scripture. First we will look at the Old Testament priesthood and then authority in the New Testament.

Aaronic Priesthood

Prior to the law of Moses, men such as Abraham offered sacrifices to God, but not as part of any priesthood. When God set up the priesthood in the days of Moses, he restricted it to Aaron and his adult descendants, who were of the tribe of Levi (Numbers 3:1-10, 8:5-22; Exodus 38:21). This would disqualify most Mormons as they do not claim to be descended from Aaron. Many LDS believe they are from the tribe of Ephraim but this would not make them eligible for the Aaronic priesthood.

Even Jesus could not function in 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.”

There were only two offices in the Aaronic priesthood, priests and one high priest. The priests prepared and offered the daily sacrifices. The high priest was the only one allowed into the most sacred part of the temple, the Holy of Holies, which he did once a year to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people of Israel.

The priesthood of the Old Testament was brought to an end with the death of Christ. According to Hebrews, chapter seven, the Aaronic (“Levitical”) priesthood, with its endless system of animal sacrifices to cover sin, never could bring about perfection because even the priests themselves were imperfect people whose sins needed atoning by the same sacrificial system.

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? (Hebrews 7:11)

Thus, there was a need for Christ (“who knew no sin,” 2 Corinthians 5:21) to come “after the order of Melchisidec,” offering himself as the perfect, one-time sacrifice for all sin and ending the imperfect Aaronic priesthood.

Also, in Matthew 27 we read that the veil of the temple, which closed off the Holy of Holies, was split in two at the time of Christ’s death, thus showing that the way into the presence of God no longer required the Jewish priesthood system, with its animal sacrifices, since Christ himself was the lamb of God offered for our sins and he is now our only High Priest. Accordingly, there is no mention in the Bible of Christ’s followers ever needing to hold an Aaronic priesthood, let alone a Melchizedek priesthood, because the former was ended in Christ and the latter could be fulfilled only by him.

Deacons

In Numbers 8:23-25, God set the minimum age of the Aaronic priesthood at twenty-five, and there were only priests and one high priest. 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. However, Paul instructed Timothy that deacons are to be mature men and faithful husbands (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.

Hebrews 5:10 tells us that Christ is the only High Priest “after the order of Melchisedec.” Then in Hebrews 7 we read that there were many high priests due to death, but Jesus had a superior priesthood because he continues as High Priest due to his endless life:

For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. (Hebrews 7:26-27)

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

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. (1 Peter 2:9)

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 of the Bible. But the word bishop simply means overseer or steward and is rendered that way in newer translations. Bishop is not a separate office in the books of Timothy and Titus, 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. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul wrote:

. . . and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will 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 (some Bibles say seventy-two) and turned this event into an ordination of men to a specific office of the priesthood. The LDS church has now expanded this to different quorums of Seventy.

However, there is no mention in the New Testament of anyone ever being appointed to be a replacement of any of these seventy men. Surely if such an office was to be part of the church it would have been mentioned in Acts or the other letters in the New Testament.

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, Joseph Fielding Smith 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 . . .¹⁸

Oddly, the Mormons insist that 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. However, the simple meaning of the Greek word evangel is “good news.” Thus an evangelist is one who spreads the “good news,” such as a missionary.

However, 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.¹⁹

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.”²⁰

There is no evidence that the word evangelis ever carried the meaning of patriarch. The Greek word translated evangelist has always carried 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

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 original twelve.

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.²¹

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

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds 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.

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 oversee the Twelve Apostles. This adds up to fifteen apostles and is not the same as Jesus’ twelve apostles.

They also maintain that Peter, James and John were the First Presidency of the early church. But they were part of the twelve, not in addition to the twelve.

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.

Thus we see that besides the problem that Mormon priesthood concepts are not in accord with the New Testament, the lack of historical references in early LDS documents to priesthood restoration leaves us with no reason to accept the Mormon claim of priesthood authority.

False Prophets?

While Mormons insist that there needs to be a prophet at the head of the church they seem to ignore the New Testament warnings of false prophets.

Matthew 24:24, warns “For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.”

We should test those who claim to be prophets. In 1 John 4:1, we are counseled: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Conclusion

If the LDS people want to truly follow the New Testament model they will need to renounce their claims to Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods and embrace the priesthood of all believers. In 1 Peter 2:4-5 we read:

As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Christians everywhere look to Jesus’ death and resurrection for the atonement for our sins, trusting Christ alone for Eternal Life, thus becoming part of His holy priesthood.

---

---

Footnotes:

1. Articles of Faith, Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve Inc., 2013), p. 60. ↩︎
2. Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), vol. 1, p. 400. ↩︎
3. Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve Inc., [LDS Church] 2013), 7:1-3. ↩︎
4. Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), p. 307. ↩︎
5. Doctrines of the Gospel, Student Manual, Religion 430 and 431 (Salt Lake City: Intellectual Reserve, Inc., 2010), p. 67. ↩︎
6. Marvin Cowan, Mormon Claims Answered (Utah Christian Publication, 1997), pp. 68-69. ↩︎
7. Doctrines of the Gospel, p. 68. ↩︎
8. Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith—History 1:68-71. ↩︎
9. Merrill J. Bateman, “Priesthood, Keys, and the Power to Bless,” Ensign, (November 2003): p. 50. ↩︎
10. Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976) vol. 1, p. 61, note. ↩︎
11. D. Michael Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1994), p. 15. ↩︎
12. John Farkas, “Fabricating the Mormon Priesthood: By God or By Man?” ↩︎
13. Gregory A. Prince, Power From on High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), p. 2. ↩︎
14. Power From on High, p. 12. ↩︎
15. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ (Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 64. ↩︎
16. An Address to All Believers in Christ, p. 49. ↩︎
17. LaMar Petersen, The Creation of the Book of Mormon: A Historical Inquiry (Salt Lake City: Freethinker Press, 2000), p. 145. ↩︎
18. Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1956), vol. 3, pp. 108-109. ↩︎
19. Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979), p. 242. ↩︎
20. Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, pp. 108, 170. ↩︎
21. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 606. ↩︎

---

---