What was early priesthood like in 1830? Michael Quinn has said there are three different dates for the restoration of the Melchizedek: 1829, 1830, and 1831. I asked Michael Marquardt to weigh in on the issue of early priesthood.
Michael: The high priesthood was like the office of high priest. So an elder, if you go backwards, would be an elder in the church and according to the Articles and Covenants. An elder is an apostle. An apostle is an elder. So just like any organization, there’s a development over time.
GT: So if I remember right, there were only three offices when the church was organized on April 6, 1830: teacher, priest, and elder. And so, there’s a question as to whether elder was part of the Aaronic priesthood or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Michael: Yeah. There was no priesthood at that time.
GT: It was just “the priesthood.”
Michael: There was no priesthood.
GT: There was no priesthood?
Michael: No, it was an office in the church.
Check out our conversation….
And check out our other conversations with Michael!
April 6 marks 189 years since the founding of the Church. We know from history that Joseph Smith said there were the original 6 members. But who were they? Michael Marquardt makes some educated guesses.
Michael: Yes, well the earliest [sources] we have, because if they’re men, of course they would be ordained to an office in the church: elder, priest, teacher. And so since there was no minutes and no other church record, even though they were supposed to keep records, we don’t have that. And so the Manuscript History of the Church mentions Joseph Smith, Sr. It also mentions Lucy Mack Smith and those are Joseph Smith’s father and mother. It mentions Martin Harris. And, it didn’t have the first name, but last name was Rockwell.
GT: So was it Porter Rockwell probably?
GT: No? Oh really.
Michael: That is pretty close. It was his mother…
Find out who else was likely there! Check out our conversation….
Don’t forget to check out or previous conversation with Michael!
Many fundamentalist Christians insist on a literal reading of Genesis. Ben Spackman says that the meaning of the word “literal” has literally changed over the centuries!
Ben: The idea of a literal reading goes way, way back to Augustine, actually. He wrote a two-volume commentary on Genesis that he called a literal commentary….When he says, “I want a literal [interpretation].” What he is saying is, “I want to read this according to the author’s intent. What did the author intend this to be?” Augustine’s already a thousand years removed from this Babylonian context. Ben: He has no way of providing an actual, literal interpretation because he can’t get into the mind of the author. He doesn’t have access to the Babylonian material. He doesn’t have access to any of that stuff. A literal reading, and you can find this in the Catholic catechism as well–a literally reading is a reading that gets at what the author intended. It’s a deeply contextual reading. It requires some expertise. It means reading poetry as poetry, reading fiction as fiction, reading history as history. It doesn’t mean a surface reading without context. It doesn’t mean a scientific reading. It means reading according to the authors intent. So, if I have a poem and I try to read that poem as history, that’s not a literal reading. If I have a history that I try to read as metaphor, that’s not a literal reading. If I have a non-natural philosophy creation account, but I try to read as scientific history, that’s not a literal reading. That’s a misreading.
He also talks about religious populism. What is that, and how does it relate to a literal reading?
Ben: our modern idea of literal reading–that I can read it, I can understand it, I don’t need a priest or a pastor, an academic to tell me what it means. It’s part of the populist 19th century, anti-clerical stuff that carries over. It’s not helpful to us. The idea that person “A” reading in English 3000 years removed from these things with no context will understand it the way the author intended, the way the first people heard it is implausible, let’s say kindly.
So how does this fit into LDS history? Joseph Smith had two competing instincts. On the one hand, he was very populist. That’s evident in a couple of places. On the other hand, he studied Hebrew. He did a tiny bit of Greek. He did a little German. He gets asked once, how do you interpret this? And he says, “Well, read it in context.” This is how I would paraphrase. He says, “Well, look at the question, how do you interpret this parable? Look at the question that drew it out, look to context to interpret and understand.” The impulse to context, to Hebrew, to all that kind of thing, I think that kind of died with Joseph Smith. The populism continued. There’s a lot of distrust of experts, of academics, especially academics who have things to say about the Bible, right?
Check out our conversation…
Don’t miss out on our other conversations with Ben!