17 Points of the True Church

How does one respond to the statement: “Churches don’t save; Jesus saves”?

What does the Bible teach about priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ?

Christians don’t need a mediating priesthood?

Is there a “Priesthood of All Believers”?

When the Bible talks about being “born again,” what does this mean? How did the first Christians understand this concept?

Baptism for the dead

The Bible predicts an apostasy from the church founded by Jesus Christ. Is there any Biblical evidence that this apostasy began?

Since members of the Church believe that divine authority was lost during the apostasy, wouldn’t some Christian author or members have noted this problem?

Biblical Evidences of an Apostasy

Terryl L. Givens

Dr. Terryl L. Givens sat down with host Blair Hodges during the Mormon Scholars Foundation Summer Seminar at Brigham Young University. Blair uses selections from Givens’s books as jumping off points for further discussion on a wide array of subjects, including: nineteenth-century anti-Mormon literature, the Book of Mormon, prisca theologia, the paradox of searching and certainty, recent developments in Mormon studies, Parley P. Pratt, the preexistence, globalization, thoughtful faith, and dealing with difficult historical and theological puzzles.

Questions about this episode and ideas for future episodes can be added to the comments section here, or emailed to podcast@fairlds.org.

Dr. Terrl L. Givens is Professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. He has authored several books, including The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (Oxford 1997); By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (Oxford 2003); People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture (Oxford 2007); The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford 2009); and When Souls had Wings: Pre-Mortal Life in Western Thought (2010). His current projects include a biography of Parley P. Pratt (with Matt Grow, to be published by Oxford in 2011), a sourcebook of Mormonism in America (with Reid Neilson, to be published by Columbia in 2011), a history of Mormon theology (with Steven Harper), and a study of the idea of human perfectibility in the Western tradition. He lives in Montpelier, Virginia.

(Image and info from http://terrylgivens.com/)

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Runtime:

55:26

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

Gerald N. Lund wrote an article for the Ensign in 1990 that explains in detail why the atonement was necessary and how it works, calling the Fall of Adam “one of the most misunderstood and misinterpreted doctrines in all of Christianity”: Gerald N. Lund, “The Fall of Man and His Redemption,” Ensign, Jan. 1990, 22.

Most Christians (not just Latter-day Saints) believe that everyone will be resurrected. However, there are some critics that claim such beliefs are unbiblical, and that only those who are saved will be resurrected. While the Book of Mormon speaks plainly of the resurrection being universal (see, for example, Alma 11:40–45 and Mormon 9:12–14), the Bible also speaks of it. Here are some examples:

• 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 – “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
• John 5:28-29 – “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”
• Acts 24:15 – “And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”

This doctrine was also clearly taught in the early Christian church:

• “If only a just judgment were the cause of the resurrection, it would of course follow that those who had done neither evil nor good, namely, very young children, would not rise again. However, we see that all persons are to rise again, including those who have died in infancy” (Athenagoras, 175 AD.)
• “By mentioning both the judgment seat and the distinction between good and bad works, he sets before us a judge who is to award both sentences. He has thereby affirmed that all will have to be present at the tribunal in their bodies.” (Tertullian, 207 AD.)
• “Since the entire man consists of the union of the two natures [body and soul], he must therefore appear in both natures. For it is right that a man should be judged in his entirety…Therefore, as he lived, he must also be judged.” (Tertullian, 210 AD.)

It is unfortunate but telling that our most important doctrines receive so much criticism from those who would have the world believe that we worship “a different Jesus.” Indeed, if our Jesus is different, it is because we believe in the uncorrupted concept of Jesus Christ found in the scriptures, and not in the creeds of man.

The Life of Christ Was Predicted Long before His Birth
Book of Mormon/Textual changes/”the Son of”
Alma 7:10 – Jerusalem vs Bethlehem

He Was the Only Begotten of the Father
The “Mormon” vs. the “Christian” Jesus
Worship different Jesus
Jesus Christ/Brother of Satan
Jesus Christ/Conception

He Led a Perfect Life
Gordon B. Hinckley states that Latter-day Saints don’t believe in the “traditional” Christ
Baptism essential

He Organized the Only True Church
Apostasy

He Redeemed Us from Our Sins and Saved Us from Death
Jesus Christ/Atonement
Jesus Christ/Crucified on a cross
Sweat and skin pores

His Sacrifice Showed His Love for His Father and for Us
Grace and works

It is not my purpose in these pages to prove, or even to argue, that the LDS church is true or that its doctrines are correct, even though I believe both of those propositions. Rather, I will attempt to show why the arguments used to exclude Latter-day Saints from the “Christian” world are flawed. The operating principle behind most of my arguments will not be rectitude but equity—what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That is, if Augustine or Luther or John Paul II can express opinions or insist on beliefs that differ from the Christian mainstream and yet still be considered Christians, then Joseph Smith and Brigham Young cannot be disqualified from bearing that title when they express the same or similar opinions. If theological or ecclesiastical diversity can be tolerated among mainstream Christian churches without charges of their being “non-Christian,” then diversity of a similar kind, or to a similar degree, ought to be tolerated in the Latter-day Saints. This is simply an issue of playing on a level field. (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991), p. viii.)

In my conversations with those critical of LDS beliefs I have come to the realization that Professor Robinson’s approach is really the Achilles heel of most detractors. Philosophically it is quite sound, for it is logically fallacious to accept an idea or criticism when applied to an opponent’s argument but reject it when applied to one’s own argument. Yet more to the point the clear demonstration of a double-standard demonstrates a fundamental weakness within arguments meant to undermine the faith of the Saints.

In an article which was part of a festschrift in honor of C.S. Lewis, Austin Farrer wrote of the need for rational argument:

It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. (Austin Farrer, “The Christians Apologist,” in Jocelyn Gibb, ed., Light on C.S. Lewis [New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976], p. 26.)

Many will recognize this quotation as it has been quoted with approval by such individuals as the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell. However, fewer will be familiar with the following from the same article:

The strictly apologetic technique is that of controversial argument; and it is no doubt essential to the apologist’s success that he should enter the controversial lists with credit, and make a brave show in the exchange of buffets. Orthodoxy must be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position; but it may seldom be argument that casts the decisive weight. It may more commonly be a direct presentation, allowing the vitality of orthodox ideas to be felt.” (Ibid., p. 25.)

Here, Farrer asserts that “Orthodoxy must be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position.” In other words, it must measure up to the same standards as “any other position.” But interestingly, “it may seldom be argument that casts the decisive weight. It may more commonly be a direct presentation, allowing the vitality of orthodox ideas to be felt.”

It has been my experience that “direct presentation” is indeed far more vital than “rational argument.” It is in direct presentation that the “vitality of’ any idea is “felt” including the tenants of the restored Gospel. We do not in our missionary lessons argue investigators into acceptance of the restored Gospel but rather through “direct presentation” allow “the vitality of… ideas to be felt.” And “felt” is a key word. I may be placing more emphasis upon the concept and the implications of that particular term than Farrer might have but the impressions of the Spirit to the heart and mind are indeed “felt.”

Why is all of this material to the concept of equity? The critic fails to provide a viable alternative when their approach is merely to impugn, without due consideration for how they may be undermining the vitality of their own position, the beliefs of others. They fail to consider that for the Latter-day Saints what is indeed “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” If a particular criticism aimed at the Book of Mormon can be equitably applied to the Bible with similar result, what is left? This of course provides no challenge for the atheist but since the majority of LDS critics who would deny us to designation “Christian” do indeed accept the Bible, usually as sufficient and inerrant, it does tend to result in rather the opposite of what they may intend.

It is not enough to demonstrate with this or that argument that the Book of Mormon is false if such an argument can be equitably applied to the Bible to the same effect. If one dismisses both one is left with neither. Yet when the special pleading of our critics is rejected and the standards they espouse applied equitably they cry foul and accuse us of attacking the Bible. But for the Latter-day Saints it is just as impious to impugn the Book of Mormon as it is to impugn the Bible; we consider both “scripture” (Article of Faith 1:8).

Attempting to poison the well or to arguing to personal interest these critics seek to preclude further discussion of these equitably applied objections as they are either unprepared to discuss them or unwilling to accept the consequences resulting from their application. But, to place a more common face on these fallacies, tying up ones opponent through vilifying them in the eyes of others and/or preaching to the choir only results in maintaining the status quo, in retention or boundary management, not in convincing anyone not already predisposed to accept your position.

Thus equity becomes the Achilles heel of most critics, leading them to either abandon logic and resort to fallacies of irrelevance, to admitting that they do indeed have similar if not identical skeletons in their own closet, or to arguing that the concept cannot indeed be equitably applied. At least the latter leaves room for discussion and demonstrates an open mind.

All of this is not to say that there are no rational answers for criticisms leveled against the restored Gospel but rather to state that equity is a useful tool in answering such criticisms. If FAIR is a testament to anything, it is that LDS Christianity can indeed “be made out as argumentatively sound as any other position.”

National Catholic Reporter on Apostolic Succession (Some coverage of Francis Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops.)

Deacons Then and Now (I introduce David Horrell’s theory why stationary bishops took over for traveling apostles).

Bowman on Ordination (Response to an evangelical critic, where I argue that ordination is necessary for apostleship. It is interesting that Sullivan and some other Catholic scholars have made concessions to EV scholars that all early bishops could not necessarily trace a chain of ordinations back to the apostles. Some of Father Sullivan’s positions have been criticized by Father Michael McGuckian.)

The Apostolic Foundation (I survey some scholars regarding the expections for apostles derived from the OT and Qumran texts. More importantly check out Baptist’s R. A. Campell’s arguments that apostles were meant to be continually replaced, well after Matthias and James.)

Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity , The Editors’ Preface and Introduction (Some early attempts to summarize Nibley’s book on my Mormon and Catholic blog).

You will probably also need some familiarity with Ignatius and Clement, a couple of early Bishops. Some good written-by-a-Mormon resources:

Dave Nielsen, “Clement of Rome as Seen Through an Apostolic Paradigm” Studia Antiqua 5:2 (Fall 2007) Nielsen analyzes the letter written by Clement, a bishop of Rome usually dated around 96 AD, Nielsen approvingly cites Nibley’s observation that Clement does not claim apostolic authority. Later he relies on Nibley’s analysis that Rome became the most prominent bishopric by virtue of being the capital city of the Roman empire.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, “Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp: Three Bishops between the Apostles and Apostasy,” Ensign, Aug. 1976,  Anderson finds that New Testament bishops “were appointed and supervised by apostles and presided in a defined area.” Analyzing the writings of three early bishops, he concludes “all notably lack the quality [revelation] that enabled the apostles to establish the church.”

Some other notable LDS authored stuff about early Christian priesthood authority.

A. Burt Horsley, Peter and the Popes. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989 accessible through the BYU’s Religious Studies Center website at (last accessed March 3, 2009) Horsley provides biographical data of the lives of Peter and his Catholic successors. He identifies Matthew 16:18′s “rock” as revelation and argues its loss greatly weakens such succession claims. While rejecting this idea and pointing out that the book’s intended audience is exclusively Mormon, one Catholic reviewer described it as “well- ordered and reasonably accurate” while being “a step toward dialogue and mutual understanding.” See Patrick Madrid, “A Mormon Eyes the Papacy,” This Rock Volume 1:3 March 1990

John A. Tvedtnes, Rejection of Priesthood Leaders as a Cause of the Great Apostasy posted on the FAIR website in 2004. Tvedtnes argues “that the loss of the apostles alone was [not] sufficient for the Lord to withdraw his authority from the earth.” In his view, remaining priesthood holders could conceivably be authorized by revelation to reform the presiding quorum. He combs the New Testament and patristic sources for evidence that wide spread rebellion prevented this from happening.

S. Kent Brown, “The Seventy in Scripture” By Study and Also By Faith, vol. 1 of Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990): 25—45.  Brown sifts through the Old Testament and other ancient texts and concludes “it now becomes clear why Jesus chose two sets of disciples, the twelve and the seventy. The twelve bore an obvious relation to the tribes of Israel, the seventy to the gentile nations of the earth as well as to an inner structural entity that existed within the tribal system of preexilic Israel.” Following this study up, John Tvedtnes in “The Lord Appointed Other Seventy Also” looks for hints in early writings for the apostolic mission of Seventy and the names of new members not originally appointed by Jesus, including perhaps, Paul and Barnabus.

C. Wilfred Griggs, “Paul: The Long Road From Damascus” . Griggs demonstrates that Paul’s line of authority is dependent on the Twelve. This counters the notion that Paul’s apostleship derived solely from a visionary experience.

Barry Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity (Ben Lomond, CA : FAIR, 1999). In chapter 5, Bickmore points out the importance of ordination and takes issue with the “priesthood of all believers concept.” He looks into evidence for the persistence of New Testament offices, for example pointing out the Didache’s reference to traveling apostles and prophets. He discusses differences in patristic writings between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, but in contrast to Nibley associates bishops with Melchizedek high priests instead of Aaronic high priests.

Two articles covering the pre-Christian era, they set the stage for the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood in the Old World.

Daniel C. Peterson, “Authority in the Book of Mosiah” in FARMS Review 18/1 (2006)

David Larsen,  Two High Priesthoods [parts 1,2,3]  (publication forthcoming)

Finally three articles about moderating expectations when one does not find a carbon copy of the present LDS organization in the early Christian church:

Grant Underwood, “The ‘Same’ Organization the Existed in the Primitive Church” in Go Ye into All the World: the 31^st annual Sperry Symposium eds. Ray Huntington, Thomas Wayment, and Jerome Perkins (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book 2002)

Kevin Barney writes in A Tale of Two Restorations:

If one is to restore the early Christian church, there are two basic ways to go about the task. One would be to restore it the way Nauvoo Restoration restored Heber C. Kimball’s home: to attempt to recreate it as it was and preserve it in precisely that setting. This is a sort of museum approach to restoration, and this was the path followed by Alexander [Campbell]. The alternative approach would be to restore not only the forms of New Testament worship, but also the means, which entail revelation between God and man. This of course is the path followed by Joseph. If one restores the means as well as the forms, however, a paradox arises, for revelation by its very nature can take the church in new directions responsive to changing conditions. It may be that a church patterned after a first century Hellenistic ekklesia is not what is needed by the Saints in, say, twenty-first century Russia. Some in the early Church of this dispensation were not prepared for this possibility.

Blair Hodges Liken with Care is worth the read:

For my home teaching lesson last month, instead of giving a message from the First Presidency, I decided to give a message about the First Presidency. Actually it is more about the Twelve Apostles as a whole (and not just the central three pillars that lead them), Jesus, the restoration of Israel, the temple as a symbol for God’s kingdom, and revelation. These concepts are all intimately intertwined, especially in imagery that presents the Twelve (as delegated by Christ) as foundational rocks or seer stones.

The closest precedent the Old Testament offers to the apostles are the Twelve tribal princes that Moses designated along with 70 elders. These princes were in turn modeled after the Twelve Patriarchs or the sons of Israel that were the founding fathers of each tribe. William Horbury has a book chapter (“The Twelve and the Phylarchs” p. 157-188) available on Google books that explores the concept further. This priestly position fell into obscurity as the nation of Israel went through vast political changes and scattering. The concept of the Seventy fared much better, but that is a different story. Suffice it to say, when Christ restored the office of the Twelve, it began to meet Messianic expectations that Israel would be restored to her former glory.I do like considering connections, however remote with other ancient texts, although I have to rely on other scholars. I have taken the liberty of excising references and language transcriptions without notice in the excerpts below. I will keep my commentary minimal and in italics.

From J. A. Draper, “The Apostles as Foundation Stones of the Heavenly Jerusalem and the Foundation of the Qumran Community” Neotestamentica 22 (1988).

What follows are excerpts of commentary on Rev. 21. First, the 12 apostles symbolize a restoration of the 12 tribes.

The identification of parts of the city with the community is rather in terms of names inscribed: those of the twelve tribes on the gates and those of the apostles of the Lamb on the twelve foundation stones. The whole city is described in units and multiples of twelve, symbolic of the eschatological renewal of Israel. Sanders has remarked that, “the expectation of the reassembly of Israel was so widespread and the memory of the twelve tribes so acute, that ‘twelve’ would necessarily mean restoration …”

Principally the foundation is understood to be Christ, but another application is to that of the 12 and their community of followers.

However, the underlying theme is probably given by two texts from Isaiah 28:16 and 54:11-12. The “precious cornerstone” of Isaiah 28:16 was usually given a Christological interpretation in the New Testament, as in the Targum where, in place of the reading of the Masoretic text, “a stone, a tested stone” it has “a king, a strong king, powerful and terrible.” Here it is applied to the community instead.

The 12 as stones related to the Urim and Thummin–an intriguing link to seer stones and revelation. Moses’ Twelve princes provided the precious stones for the High Priest’s breastplate.

By the first century B C, the Biblical lots Urim and Thummim had been thoroughly confused with the twelve gemstones in the breastplate of the High Priest, each inscribed with the name of a tribe. After their loss in 586 B. C, speculation took over from fact, but they continued to be understood as sources of judgment and prophecy, belonging to the High Priest. They were believed to have been hidden by Jeremiah before the fall of Jerusalem, and their restoration to the temple was to be a sign of the eschatological renewal of Israel. All of these ideas lie behind the Qumran pesher, and it seems that the twelve founding members of the community are identified with the twelve Urim and Thumim …. This is very close to the conception in Revelation 21:14,19ff, where the apostles’ names are inscribed on the twelve foundation stones of the new Jerusalem and characterised further as twelve gemstones. In other words, the twelve apostles are identified with the Urim and Thummim as a sign of the eschatological renewal of Israel.

Draper cites Qumran texts like 1QS 8:1-16; 9:3-11; 1QS 11:7-8; and reconstructs the fragmentary 4Qplsa (commentary on Isa 54:11-12. 1QS 8 refers to a “council of the community” composed of “twelve men and three priests” who are “foundational” and the “precious cornerstone” of Isaiah 28.16. Draper uses the latter 2 texts to make connections with Rev. 21 and identify the 12 (3 priests are included) as “heads of the tribes.” On 1 QS 9 Draper writes:

The description of this founding group of twelve is taken up again in 9:3-11, where they are described as “a foundation of holy spirit.” The spirit of holiness has the function of purifying and inspiring the members with insight into the mysteries of God (compare lQS 3:6-12, where the spirit of holiness is connected with moral conversion and ritual lustration). The spirit is a mark of the special presence of God with his people, and has also eschatological implications, since it was believed to have deserted Israel until the promised outpouring of the last days. This passage also sees the group as a spiritual temple . . . Within this community only the sons of Aaron are to rule in judgment and possessions, and the lot is to be cast only on their authority (9:7). Thus the group as a whole is invested with the authority of its three priests. This is because the lot which makes decisions or judgments, connected with the priesthood and the temple, is the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest’s vesture.

From  David Mathewson, “A Note on the Foundation Stones in Revelation 21.14, 19-20″ [JSNT 25.4 (2003) 487-498] see abstract here.]

Though most commentators have pointed to texts such as Eph. 2.20 and Mt. 16.16-18 [and Gal. 2.9] as the ostensible background for the notion of the apostles as the foundation stones (members) of the Christian community in Rev. 21.14, insufficient attention has been devoted to the Old Testament matrix for this architectural feature of the New Jerusalem. Though John is noticeably dependent on Ezek. 40–48 for much of his description of the New Jerusalem in 21.9-21, it is Isa. 54.11-12 that depicts the eschatological restoration of Jerusalem in terms of its adornment with precious stones (cf. Isa. 28.16). In addition to the overall role that Isa. 40–66 plays throughout Rev. 21.1-27 more broadly, ….

Interestingly, in the Isaiah pesher the pinnacles are allegorized as the twelve priests who give illumination like the sun by means of the Urim and Thummim. The Urim and Thummim possessed oracular significance in Israelite tradition. It appears, however, that the function of the Urim and Thummim could be transferred to the twelve stones on the breastplate of the high priest.

Francis Sullivan

Many scholars, however does not believe that the 12 were meant to continue after laying a foundation. This echoes a fairly common sentiment I have run across. For example, Catholic Francis Sullivan writes (see my blog post for reference:

The role of the Twelve as symbolizing the twelve patriarchs of Israel meant that they had a unique role to play, precisely as a group of twelve, in the very origin of the church. This called for the choice of a twelfth man to take the place of Judas, prior to Pentecost so that on that day Peter “stood up with the Eleven” (Acts 2:14) when he gave his first witness to the risen Christ. On the other hand, some years later, when James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2), there was no question of again completing the number of the Twelve. By then the initial “foundation time” was completed.

R. A. Campbell

However Baptist R. A. Campbell reacts to such an argument in “The Elders of the Jerusalem Church” Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993). Campbell argues that Luke expects us to assume that when James died that he was replaced like Judas was with Matthias. Those who disagree “are indulging in dogmatic speculation in the service of their own theories” !! (p. 517-518). He concludes that Luke purposefully calls Paul and apostle because qualification of his witness and sense of mission was equivalent to those who had been with Christ from the beginning of his mission.  Here is a more subdued version of his position that Campbell presented in his ’94 book The Elders p. 162-3]

Jerusalem, of course, was unique in having within it a body of twelve men who exercised leadership in virtue of their special commissioning by Jesus to be the nucleus of the eschatologically restored Israel. It is uncertain what became of this group, whether they left Jerusalem on missionary service, or died out, or whether they continued in leadership up to the time of the Jewish War, their number being made up as necessary by others to maintain the symbolic significance of Twelve.[59] Luke’s evidence is most commonly understood, as we have seen, to mean that the elders succeeded the apostles in the leadership of the chutch. Recently, for example, Bauckham has suggested that, as the number of the original Twelve dwindled, a new body was formed under the leadership of James, with any surviving apostles forming part of it, and it is this body whom Luke calls ‘the elders’.[60] But if in fact the Twelve, as an institution, continued for any length of time in Jerusalem, then the term ‘the elders’ would naturally have been applied to them, especially if, as is likely, that body included members of the original group, those whom Luke calls ‘the apostles’.

[59] We are regularly assured that this did not happen, that when James bar Zebedee was executed his place was not filled, but can we be sure of this, given the selectiveness of Luke’s account? The symbolic importance of the Twelve, together with the space Luke gives to describing Matthias’s appointment, might suggest the opposite: the number was maintained, and this is how it was done.
[60] Bauckham, Relatives, p. 75. Bauckham presents evidence to suggest that the list of bishops of Jerusalem, preserved independently by Eusebius and Epiphanius, should in reality be seen as a list of the new eldership surrounding James, pp. 70-9.

From Bruce Chilton in Types of Authority in Formative Christianity and Judaism. London, UK: Routledge, (1999).

Chilton believes that more replacements in 12 happened besides Matthias for Judas, but considers Paul an apostle outside of the 12.

In the new environment of God’s spirit which the resurrection signaled, baptism was indeed, as Matthew 28:19 indicates, an activity and an experience which involved the Father (the source of one’s identity), the Son (the agent of one’s identity), and the Holy Spirit (the medium of one’s identity). The intimate connection between endowment with the spirit of God and the resurrection of Jesus enables us to understand why the actual constituency of the apostles did not have to be strictly limited to those who had been selected by Jesus as such. In Acts 1:21– 6, Matthias is chosen with Joseph Barsabbas, as among those who had been associated with the movement from the time of John’s baptism. Both are fit to be witnesses of the resurrection, and the casting of lots results in the choice of Matthias, so that the number twelve is made up. Clearly, the apostolic group in Jerusalem maintained the principle of personal familiarity with Jesus prior to the resurrection and with the movement initiated by John, as well as the significance of the number twelve, even as the persons numbered among the twelve changed. That enables us to understand why there should be variations recorded in the names of those chosen by Jesus (see Matthew 10:2– 4; Mark 3:16– 19; Luke 6:14– 16). These lists represent an amalgam of historical memory and the constituency of the twelve as known to the local authorities in Rome around 70 CE (so Mark) or in Damascus around 80 CE (so Matthew) or in Antioch around 90 CE (so Luke)….

In his assertion of his apostolic rights (including the right not to work, to be sustained, and to have a wife, see 1 Corinthians 9:3– 7), Paul includes himself in the same category as Barnabas (9:6): “Or am I alone with Barnabas in not having authority not to work?” By implication, then, Barnabas is an apostle in the same sense Paul is. Barnabas was an important figure within the church in Jerusalem, but he was a Levite from Cyprus, and certainly did not meet the qualifications of a Matthias. 25 Moreover, Paul does not list Barnabas as among those to whom the risen Jesus appeared. Still, Paul does refer to Jesus’ appearance to “all the apostles,” and Barnabas might be understood among their number. In any case, we do need to rely on Paul’s implication to see Barnabas as an apostle: he is actually named as such, with Paul (and before Paul!) in Acts 14:14. The total list of those to whom the risen Jesus appeared gives us some idea of the extent to which apostolic identity might be claimed far beyond the circle of the twelve, and Paul and Acts confirm that impression.

Concluding Remarks

There is also, in Rev. 21, 12 gates associated with visionary temple also presumably representing the Q12 as well. I wonder how this ties in with the Q12 or Jesus being heavenly gate keepers or prevailing against the gates of hell (spirit world) as some Mormon commentators such as Barry Bickmore have pointed out. I am tempted to tie the 12 oxen supporting the temple font with the 12 tribal princes/apostles given the imagery of the apostles being foundational. A foundation that was meant to continue even beyond Matthias replacing the fallen Judas.  In sum, I think there is a very complex imagery lurking behind Matt. 16′s rock that links the apostles to Jesus and revelation as collectively being the foundation of a restoration of Israel and the temple and all that that implies in regards to heavenly and earthly salvation.

Even Mormon history is susceptible to such critiques as the priesthood has developed to accommodate growth, reassess appropriate qualifications, and delegate duties. David Whitmer was an early such critic, attributing the 1831 introduction [1]  of the offices of bishop and deacon to Sidney Rigdon’s Campbellite [2] influence. The 1830 church, in his view, was patterned after the three offices found in the Book of Mormon [3], that of  elder, priest, and teacher. It is difficult to provide an adequate summary of Whitmer’s later views, but perhaps a general observation will serve, namely that he was opposed to developments that contributed towards a hierarchical organization (such as the 1831 endowment that elevated some elders to the  high priesthood [4]). 

One recurring pattern I see in my study of ancient and modern priesthood is  that when two offices or priesthoods are given overlapping responsibilities, it can create rivalries and turf wars. Some modern scripture was given that anticipates some of these problems. Consider, for example D&C 20 which gives both elders and priests the right to administer the sacrament. I read such passages  in terms of who should preside over or decide who administers the sacrament when only representatives from those two offices are present. The ordinance of the sacrament is equally valid whether a priest or elder actually performs it, the important thing is to remove contention by having a clear hierarchy.

On the other hand, there have been historically been two schools of thought on who should be preferred to actually administer the sacrament if Aaronic priests and MP holders are present. The old school believed that having higher authorities perform the responsibilities gave the sacrament greater dignity. But this was killing off the AP who were stuck only with the most uninspiring tasks like building clean-up. The new school stressed the AP’s role as a training priesthood for young men and for higher authorities to delegate more tasks downward so they can concentrate on their duties that don’t overlap with the AP. Some fascinating history can be found in William G. Hartley’s article From Men to Boys, which contains about everything I would want to say about modern deacons and a rationale for departing from scriptural formulas on age requirements [5]. Please forgive my roundabout way of introducing the article, but ideas about deacons often have to be extracted from studying dynamics between higher offices. The lowly office of deacon doesn’t get a lot of literary or scholarly attention.
 
A study of deacons might more properly begin by proposing definitions and tackling developments in chronological order starting in the New Testament. So somewhat belatedly, let me use Kevin Barney’s definition:

The English word deacon is simply a transliteration of the Greek noun diakonos, which is derived from the verb diakoneo (a compound of the preposition dia and the verb akoneo). The basic meaning of the verb is to serve, to minister, especially in the sense of to provide the necessities of life. So this verb would be used when talking about one who serves food and drink at table, for instance. It is very appropriate to describe one who passes the emblems of the sacrament. The word can be used in a nontechnical sense, simply one who serves, or in the technical sense of one who holds the priesthood office of a deacon.

One can divide New Testament writing into an early stage and a late stage. Acts contains some useful historical information, but scholars typically call attention to Luke harmonizing early developments in light of later ones. Paul’s letters have also been sorted into early and later periods. It has been noticed that early sources present a threefold ministry of apostles, prophets, and teachers (1 Cor. 12:28-29, Acts 13:1). Later sources expand to a fivefold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists (sub-apostolic missionaries?), pastors (presbyter-bishops?), and teachers (Eph. 4:11, 20:17,28 note that “presbyter” is interchangeable with “elder” and “bishop” is interchangeable with “overseer” and Luke may be anachronistically harmonizing elders with bishops. [6]). It is interesting that these lists are presented in greatest to least order as are lists of names in the New Testament. So Acts 13, using the pigeonhole principle, presents Barnabus as a “prophet” and Paul as merely a “teacher.” Acts presents Paul as someone who slowly arose in the ranks under Jerusalem based authorities, despite what Rob Bowman sees in Paul’s letters, mainly that early on Paul claimed to be an apostle equal and independent of the Twelve [7].

It is a outside the scope of this blog to try to figure out if and where the seventy, patriarchs, Aaronic priests, or Mechizedek high priests fit into the threefold or fivefold schema. Feel free to speculate in the comments. A deacon was primarily considered a bishop’s helper, so we have to consider the adapting role of a bishop in early Christianity to understand deacons. Nibley, in Apostles and Bishops, provides a useful classification that might correspond roughly with our division of responsibilities we see between the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood, although these categories should not be taken as mutually exclusive.

This classification is between traveling and stationary authorities (p. 19-21), especially drawing from the Didache(and the analysis done by influential scholar Adolf von Harnack), a document contemporary with some of the later New Testament writings. (I lean towards the scholarly consensus that date the final version of letters to Timothy and Titus very much after Paul’s death, even though that puts me somewhat in unorthodox territory.) The Didache clearly shows travelling prophets and apostles as the superiors of local bishops and elders[8]. However it provides tests that local officials can submit to “wandering prophets” to determine their legitimacy. Another test is given in John’s contemporaneous epistles, which ironically may have been used–inappropriately of course –when a local official would no longer receive John.

With apologies to Scott Petersen, one might amend his book’s title to “Where have all the traveling prophets gone?” A traditional explanation has been that apostles and prophets were merely supposed to lay the foundation of the Church, and founding time eventually expired [9]. The apostolic charge of missionary work given in Matthew 28:19 became regarded as sufficiently accomplished[10]. Historically we see the role of general leadership being absorbed by letter writing campaigns led by bishops of secularly prominent cities and local bishops meeting in territorial councils. In voicing his suspicion that leadership of the church passed from travelling authorities to stationary ones is an historical dark spot, Nibley foreshadowed his future studies [11] about “When the Lights Went Out.”

A relatively recent scholar, David Horrell [12], noted that nobody since Harnack has tried to explain the transition in any detail. He utilized a household development model for the rise of bishops that Nibley did not. Basically this model has bishops arising out of the family patriarchs that often hosted church services. Early Christians were frequently cast out of synagogues, and initially having no dedicated buildings of their own, were forced to meet in the homes of the more wealthy patrons. These wealthy patriarchs would naturally be called to positions of responsibility and leadership in the local church. The qualifications for bishops and deacons in Timothy and Titus resemble “household codes” or societal rules for running a respectable household in a community.

These codes tended to further elevate the position of the hosting male leader in comparison to his wife, children, servants, slaves, and guests. One sees the hint of a class warfare problem that could emerge between wealthy local leaders and the poor travelling leaders that depended upon (and could be accused of abusing in the Didache) a host’s generosity. Horrell’s model also has the benefit of explaining the decline in prominence of women in the early church. Women like Junia and Priscilla were mentioned in the same breath as evangelizing apostles, but the pastoral letters effectively silenced such activity. You heard it here first, but the a priori rejection of female prophetic ability seems to have been an early sign of the apostasy.

The main idea I want to get across is that the pastoral letters impose the same requirements on deacons as they do on bishops. Furthermore, these requirements regarding marriage were cultural expediencies and not necessarily regarded as revelation. According to Helmut Koester, a factor in the canonization of Paul’s (and deutero-Pauline) writings was the political stability they ensured and not any claim to inspiration (which was often detrimental for canon selection, consider the controversy over the book of Revelation, for instance) [13].

Much more can be said about the development of the office of a deacon drawing on patristic sources, Nibley, and other scholars. However, I have already greatly exceeded the length of an ideal blog entry (3 paragraphs and the truth!).

Notes and References 

[1] Recommended treatments of early Mormon priesthood developments are John Tvedtnes’ Organize My Kingdom and Gregory Prince’s Power from on High.

[2] For a good introduction to Campbellite restoration thought see Kevin Barney in A Tale of Two Restorations:

[3]  One might profitably ask why there was a difference in the priesthood organization in between the old world and the new world in ancient times.

In the new world, some Nephites held the Melchizedek Priesthood (MP) from the time of Lehi to the Nephi that was contemporary with Jesus. One could make the argument that the Nephites, who were not descendants of Aaron or Levi, only ever held the MP.  When the Book of Mormon talks about priests and teachers, it is probably describing MP priests and teachers before and after Christ’s appearance. To read further about Book of Mormon priesthood concepts, see Dan Peterson’s article. 

In the Old World it is apparent that nobody was considered to hold the MP in the time immediately before Christ. I recently wrote a piece that I hope will appear in Mormon Times, answering the related question of when Christ was ordained to the priesthood. The gist of my response was that Christ was expected to restore that missing authority especially in light of Hebrews 5. Putting these examples together, one might say that in the presence of the MP, the AP might seem to be optional or unnecessary. Still there might be good reasons in the NT and in our modern dispensation for keeping the AP around for practical reasons:

1. Together the two priesthoods teach sound organizational principles, exalting the spiritual over the temporal.
2. The AP can act like a training priesthood for the MP.
3. During a transistion period the AP can act like a forerunner for the restoration of the MP much like John the Baptist prepared the way for Jesus.
4. In times of partial apostasy, the Lord may choose to leave a lesser priesthood functioning while removing the MP from a more active role.

The last point  this was arguably the impetus behind ordaining Aaron to begin with, due to the rebellion at Mount Sinai.  A second century writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, describes the diminishing of Christ’s church, albeit in allegorical terms. Nibley argues that after apostles died out, the would be successors (the bishops) were  primarily considered Aaronic in nature in his book Apostles and Bishops in Early Christianity.  Even in our dispensation Bishops have strong temporal duties and ties to the AP, even though they have also been given MP responsibilities and are not primarily identified as a descendent of Aaron or Levi.  After Moses set up the AP,  the MP was not entirely taken from Israel.  For example, I regard Samuel, David, Solomon, Elijah, and Lehi as MP holders. It appears that MP holders and AP holders at times in the OT had somewhat of rivalry (see the Two High Priesthoods by David Larsen  [parts 1,2,3] for details. 

So I would speculate that it would not have made much sense for Christ to give the Nephites the AP as well, because they did not inherit a strong AP tradition to begin with and couldn’t wait to scrap parts of the Law of Moses. The Jerusalem converts had a stronger attachment to the Law of Moses and retaining the AP probably made for a smother transistion. As a restoration of all things, it makes sense for our dispensation to inherit from both traditions, even though things have been adapted for our needs.

[4] See John Tvedtnes in The Evolution of the Term “Priesthood” for a good response to David Whitmer. Above, I infer Whitmer’s position on bishops and deacons from his reaction to high priests.

[5] I also like how Louis Midgley addressed these issues in a response to an inquiry to the FAIR list. He wrote:

But there is another side to this issue. I believe that when I teach in or for the Church, I am functioning as a Teacher. When I tidy up the chapel or set up or take down chairs tables, shovel snow, serve food at a dinner or a host of other similar or related things, I am acting as a Deacon. Much if noteven most of what gets done in the typical LDS congregation–Branch or Ward and also Stake–is Aaronic Priesthood stuff. We should always keep in mind that a Bishop is essentially in charge of the Aaronic Priesthood. His role as watchman on the tower is to keep an eye on all those basic things that threaten and afflict the community of Saints, and most of these are matters of serving tables, teaching and blessing others in various ways–hence Aaronic priesthood stuff. I do not believe that here below we ever really outgrow those basic and pedestrian commissions except by our own omissions.
In addition, in order for the proper training of our dispositions–that is, the formation of certain secondary though essential virtues–we must all start at an early age. Hence we all need to begin with very basic, easy, routine, familiar things and then work up to those matters that involve the mysteries of true holiness.
The movement towards ordaining young kids to the Priesthood was driven, it seems to me, by the need to get the attention of young boys and train them for basic service in the Kingdom and ready them as much as possible to serve teach and bless. If there is something anomalous about young boys being Deacons, one need also look at have tens of thousands of young fellows trying hard to be Elders by carrying that name in the world as missionaries.
There is even something stunning about identifying ourselves as Saints, since many in the Church hardly begin to qualify for that exalted title. So much of what we do can be described as now, but also not quite yet–that is, we are striving for something always beyond our reach. This is, perhaps, why one of the three Christian virtues is hope, which points us to the future in anticipation of wonders we can now hardly grasp.

[6] Such commentary on Acts 20 can be found in many sources. See for instance Catholic scholar Francis A. Sullivan, From Apostles to Bishops (2001) p. 64

Needless to say, this speech was composed by Luke, who in this respect followed the practice of ancient historians. In it, Paul warns his hearers about what will happen in the future, when he is no longer with them. Written some twenty-five years after Paul’s death, this more likely reflects the situation ofthe writer’s time than of Paul’s. For this reason, scholars bdieve that it tells us more about local ministry in Pauline churches during the subapostolic period than about the church of Paul’s own time.

[7] I began a critique of Bowman’s series against Mormon interpretations of priesthood activity in the New Testament in an earlier post Bowman on Ordination. See the link there in to see Bowman’s actual positions. I really don’t have much to say about his take on Paul other than to re-assert Griggs’ position, which I can easily find support (and differences of opinion as well) for among non-Mormon scholars.

[8] For an alternative view of the Didache see John Meier, Antioch and Rome (1984) p. 81-84. His position is that by the time the document was written, the big cities like Antioch were already self sufficient upon local leaders and that the instructions in the Didache applied only to rural areas.

[9] I would like to quote an articulate argument on this, not because my fellow Mormons will agree, but in hopes that it will raise the bar in discussions that take place with other Christians. On p. 24, Sullivan (2001) writes:

 The role of the Twelve as symnbolizing the twelve patriarchs of Israel meant that they had a unique role to play, precisely as a group of twelve, in the very origin of the church. This called for the choice of a twelfth man to take the place of Judas, prior to Pentecost so that on that day Peter “stood up with the Eleven” (Acts 2:14) when he gave his first witness to the risen Christ. On the other hand, some years later, when James, the son of Zebedee and brother of John was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2), there was no question of again completing the number of the Twelve. By then the initial “foundation time” was completed.

[10] Nibley(2005) had a little bit of fun with an argument that the apostles almost instantaneously fulfilled their Great Commission on p. 7

[Giovanni Battista Pighi] quotes John Chrysostom to prove this, forgetting the worried conclusion that Chrysostom draws from this interesting premise: “If that is so, then the end should have come long ago, since it was explicitly stated that when the apostles had once preached to all nations, then would the end come.” Chrysostom’s only possible conclusion, which he swallows with a wry face, is that the apostles cannot have accomplished their mission after all, since the church is still on the earth.

[11] The Editor’s Postscript to Nibley’s book does a great job tying in this early study to his later work.  See page 40 and 85-86 for Nibley’s discussion of the lights going out when a “traveling apostalate” ceased to exist.

[12] David Horrell, Leadership Patterns and the Development of Ideology in Early Christianity  Sociology of Religion v58 p323-41 Winter ’97

The focus of this paper is the distinction between two forms of leadership which also contrast and conflict in important ways in early Christianity, namely itinerant leadership and resident leadership (that is, leadership from those who are located in a particular community, over which they exercise leadership). I will argue that there are important distinctions to be drawn between these two patterns of leadership, that in general it is legitimate to speak of a development or transformation from itinerant to resident leadership in early Christianity, that there is evidence which reflects the tensions and difficulties which the diverse patterns of leadership caused, and that the transference of power from itinerant to resident leadership is a sociologically significant transformation which may be
connected with the development of more socially conservative patterns of ethical instruction (especially the “household codes.”)

[13]Helmut Koester, “Writings and the Spirit: Authority and Politics in Ancient Christianity,” HTR 84 (1991)353-72. While I am not entirely comfortable with Koester’s views, I am comfortable with calling the marriage requirement for deacons a cultural or political preference.

For the sake of argument, let us temporarily grant the two main points that Bowman is striving to prove for early Christianity. Neither of these ideas would threaten the unique truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The restored principle of continuing, dialogic [1] revelation is more fundamental to us than a set priesthood organization and ritual forms. That can be seen in the earliest years of how the Restoration unfolded [2]. A Church that relies on continuing revelation won’t resemble earlier versions of itself in every particular [3]. Hypothetically, I can accept that ordination by the laying on of hands and having an authoritative, living spokesman for the Lord is necessary in our dispensation while suspending judgment on other eras. My faith in unique Mormon truth claims stem from the trust I have in witnesses to angelic ministrations restoring apostolic keys (with the implication that they were missing from apostate Christianity) and my acceptance of the revelations identifying the “only true and living Church” that God is well pleased with (DC 1:30) and that priesthood keys will never again be taken away (DC 13).

Where Bowman’s critique may matter is how Latter-day Saints appeal to the Bible to present our apostasy and restoration narrative to others. Like others that hold the Bible as scripture, we often appeal to proof texts that are filtered through the lens formed by our prior knowledge [4]. Bowman provides a valuable service by showing that those same proof-texts can be rationally read to produce a different conclusion when approached with a different lens. Collectively, the ancient sources are sparse and widely distributed over time. So understandably, Bowman’s interpretations sometimes contain arguments from silence. In general, such arguments are only persuasive in as much as there is a reasonable expectation that an item would be mentioned if it really happened or existed. Such arguments can lose their force when additional information is introduced or it can be demonstrated that the missing item would naturally be assumed anyway by its original audience.

Ordinations

Benjamin Merkle, a Baptist scholar, compiled list from the New Testament (Acts 6:6; 8:17, 19; 9:12, 17; 13:3; 19:6; 28:8; also see 1 Tim 5:22) depicting the laying on of hands which he writes “is often associated with the appointing of elders” or alternatively “is often associated with the appointing or commissioning of someone for a specific office or task.” I will grant that Merkle and Bowman have identified some cases where words used for appointing or ordaining did not entail the laying on of hands. The problem then becomes which set of cases is more applicable to the ordinations under dispute, like those of Matthias and Paul. Ultimately, I think these debates are irresolvable one way due to the insufficiency of the New Testament texts. My need for closure is probably less than those coming from a sola scriptura background. A non-canonical text from Brigham Young informs my approach:

I have known that Brother Marks “had no evidence but the written word;” But if this people have no evidence but the written word, it is quite time to go to the river and be [baptized] for the remission of their sins. Who cannot see that Elder Rigdon would sacrifice this people? Brother Marks says, if there are any ordained to offices equal with Elder Rigdon he [don't] know it. He [don't] know all the ordinations, nor he [won't until] he knows something more than the written word. [5]

The context of that remark is crucial for understanding LDS apostolic succession. Here Brigham claimed that no scripture up to that point (Bible and 1844 Doctrine and Covenants included) was sufficient to establish who the successor of priesthood keys held by Joseph Smith (and thus Peter) should be. While not written, Young and others had received verbal and experiential knowledge on how to resolve the succession crisis. Many of the lesser informed Saints after Joseph’s martyrdom witnessed a divine manifestation supporting Brigham Young’s succession claims.[6] I recognize that having non-written protocols for apostolic succession can create problems. Fundamentalist schismatic groups are the Mormon version of the ancient gnostics that claimed authority from apostles via secret tradition.[7]

Nevertheless, I am curious about filling in the gaps in the New Testament. One way to do so is to appeal to later Christian tradition. Ben Merkle explains that the word “ordain” as it is represented in Patristic Greek does denote the laying on of hands, but that it would be anachronistic to read that back into Biblical passages. While I haven’t explored what traditions say about Matthias and Paul’s appointment, I am aware of some traditions (Jerome, Pseudo-Clementines) that James was ordained to his apostleship. The case of James is much more intriguing, because in some interpretations his Acts 15 role appears to transcend that of Peter. At best Paul appears to be independent and equal to Peter. Around 200 AD (for example Irenaeus) it was considered important to create “Bishops Lists” or a chain of tangibly ordained bishops traced to the apostles to combat heresies. More deserves to be said about the usefulness of this information for reconstructing ordination during the NT times. I do wonder how effective a decentralized Protestant-like organization would have been combating heresy back then with even less canonical scripture that could be appealed to.

Traditions earlier than the New Testament can also help fill in some gaps as Christianity emerged from Judaism. Numbers 27:12-23 and Deuteronomy 34:9 discuss the ordination of Joshua. Keith Mattingly demonstrated that the laying on of hands aspect was the most important part of Yahweh’s instruction to Moses and that this provided for the congregation a visible sign of the word of God.[8] Both Patristic and Rabbinical texts appeal to these passages as a precedent for their ordinations. A rabbi’s student received permission to teach publicly and judge disputes by being ordained via the laying on of hands by his master. That was referred to as semikah (meaning laying on of hands). Near the end of a long analysis of Jewish sources, Hugo Mantel writes [9]:

The laying on of hands was a blessing that the student should prove successful in his teaching (in accordance with the verse, “And Joshua the son of Nun was full with the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands upon him”). Since we know that from the time of R. Judah the Patriarch onwards it was not customary to lay on hands at the time of granting permission to a student, the origin of these Midrashim must be sought in the Temple period. We may also gather that in the Second Temple period it was customary to lay hands on students graduating as teachers in order to permit them to teach publicly, and to give decisions in ritual matters, ritual purity, and probably even to judge in financial cases not involving fines; for fines were under jurisdiction of the officially appointed judges. It was the granting of this permission which received the name semikah. A further proof, perhaps even clearer than the first, is certainly from the Temple period, and shows that semikah was practised then. In the Gospels we are told a number of times that the elders and leaders of the sect placed their hands on their students. The twelve disciples of Jesus laid their hands on seven young men who were to be the officials of the community (and, it would seem, the propagators of Christianity). Apparently these young men received by means of the semikah the right to teach Christianity in public, as, in fact, we find them doing, particularly Stephen. They taught publicly no less than the disciples themselves. Moreover, it is recorded that the prophets and the teachers of the sect in Antioch laid their hands on two of their group who went out as missionaries to spread their teachings in other cities.

Nevertheless, I do not detect a scholarly consensus that Christian ordination derived from semikah. For example, Everett Ferguson utilizes a distinction between semikah (a hard touch) and sim (a gentle touch accompanying a blessing) even though they are interchangeable in the LXX. [10]

In the Syriac version of the New Testament (unfortunately the Peshitta is our earliest text for the Acts and the Epistles) the equivalent of the Hebrew sim is uniformly used for the laying on of hands. Samakh, in contrast, occurs in the Syriac Bible chiefly for reclining at a table. All of the Syriac texts from the early history of the church use sim for the laying on of hands, and in Neo-Syriac the technical words associated with ordination are developed from this root.

Even if this line of inquiry sharply differentiates Jewish and Christian ordination, it likewise has later texts conflating ordination and the laying on of hands. Ferguson describes Christian ordinations as more immediately relying on Christ’s example of the imposition of hands in performing acts of healing.

The early Christians used the act as a symbol of a blessing. All of the circumstances in which the laying on of hands seemed appropriate in the church permit the rite to be interpreted as bestowing a blessing of one kind or another-the Holy Spirit, the fellowship of Christians, forgiveness or reconciliation. . . . This circumstance is in harmony with the earliest theological interpretations of ordination, which place the emphasis on the prayer and indeed call it a benediction. The imposition of hands was the outward symbol of the prayer -a personal benediction on the candidate and a petition for divine blessing upon him. This understanding of the hands breaks any necessary connection between the gesture and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

What I gather from these articles (and others [11]) on ordination is that it is reasonable for a first century New Testament reader to assume that when a Church officer was appointed, that officer had received the laying on of hands; whether it was explicitly mentioned in the text or not. That is not to say that things that were typically done by the laying on of hands like bestowing the Holy Ghost, healing, or ordaining were never done in another manner. In fact LDS authorities and scholars have commented on such anomalous texts (John 20:22, 3 Nephi 9:20) in regards to rare, but different ways the Holy Ghost has been bestowed. We have never really been forced to accept that such an anomaly has ever occurred in regards to priesthood ordination. Dan Peterson has responded to two separate attempts by Mormon apostates to do just that with the Book of Mormon[12] and the Priesthood Restoration[13]. Bowman’s insistence that silence in a text about the laying on of hands or an equivalent initiation ritual means is not all that new or compelling. Still, I am grateful for him taking the time to explain why LDS interpretations of certain biblical passages is likewise not compelling when approached from a different paradigm.

[1] Terryl Givens writes in The Book of Mormon and Dialogic Revelations:

Similarly, scholar of early Christianity W. D. Davies wonders if Mormonism’s error is in taking “conventional modes of revelation found in the OT . . . so literally . . . as to give a facticity to what was intended as symbolic.” …

But of course, this tenacious embrace of revelatory literalism is neither an arbitrary biblical fundamentalism nor a Book of Mormon innovation. It is in fact rooted in Joseph Smith’s own, firsthand experience with revelation, a dialogic encounter with Deity that gave indelible redefinition to the promise of James the Apostle by simply taking it at face value, thereby setting both Joseph and the church he would found on a collision course with orthodoxy. ….

For millions of believers, the Book of Mormon has been the vehicle through which they could find their own sacred grove and reenact on a personal scale the epiphany that ushered in a new dispensation.

[2] See for instance Prince’s Power from on High, Tvedtnes’ Organize My Kingdom, Welch’s Opening the Heavens as solid works containing primary source material on LDS priesthood development; another useful source is an article in Early Christians in Disarray entitled “A World in Darkness”: Early Latter-day Saint Understanding of the Apostasy, 1830-1834. As a corrective to Parley Pratt’s reminiscence they intriguingly write:

If the very earliest missionaries taught the loss of authority, it seems not to have been an area of particular emphasis or even the distinguishing characteristic. More often they taught the evil effects of the apostasy, the immediate need to come out of the world, and to gather to Zion. Early Mormonism was not presented as merely a denomination per se in contrast with all other churches, but as the restoration of all things, the very dispensation of the fullness of times, modern Israel preparing for the millennial day.

[3] Kevin Barney writes in A Tale of Two Restorations:

If one is to restore the early Christian church, there are two basic ways to go about the task. One would be to restore it the way Nauvoo Restoration restored Heber C. Kimball’s home: to attempt to recreate it as it was and preserve it in precisely that setting. This is a sort of museum approach to restoration, and this was the path followed by Alexander. The alternative approach would be to restore not only the forms of New Testament worship, but also the means, which entail revelation between God and man. This of course is the path followed by Joseph. If one restores the means as well as the forms, however, a paradox arises, for revelation by its very nature can take the church in new directions responsive to changing conditions. It may be that a church patterned after a first century Hellenistic ekklesia is not what is needed by the Saints in, say, twenty-first century Russia. Some in the early Church of this dispensation were not prepared for this possibility.

[4] Blair Hodges’ Liken with Care is worth the read:

[There is an assumption] that all that is taught in the LDS Church now, or is being revealed through the continuing restoration of the gospel must be contingent upon or equal to something in “Original Christianity.” … “Original Christianity” is a very precarious term, however, and remains imperfectly defined. These assumptions can result in proof-texting the Bible and various other early Christian writings to find evidence of truth; if it matches the old texts, it must be true, Joseph Smith got it right. Such an approach can easily miss what the original writers intended. This is a practice of which both LDS and non-LDS are guilty. ….

When the sixth article of faith says “We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth,” it does not mean that the Church on earth in Christ’s day exactly paralleled the current organization complete with Young Men/Young Women advisers.

[5] See Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph, Brigham, and the Twelve: A succession of continuity” in BYU Studies 21:3 (1971) p. 301-41 (esp. 305). See also Times and Seasons Oct. 1, 1844

[6] See Opening the Heavens

[7] Compare this rebuttal by Bryan C. Hales of fundamentalist claims to Irenaeus’ against gnostics Against Haeresies

[8] Keith Mattingly, “The Significance of Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands in Numbers 27:12-23″ in Andrews University Seminary Studies 39.2 (Autumn 2001) 191-208.

[9] Hugo Mantel, “Ordination and Appointment in the Period of the Temple” in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Oct., 1964), pp. 325-346

[10] Everett Ferguson, “Jewish and Christian Ordination: Some Observations”  in The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan., 1963), pp. 13-19

[11] A good summary of several articles can be found with Robert Lee Williams, Bishops Lists p. 54, 58-60, Gorgias Press (2005)

[12] See Daniel C. Peterson, “Authority in the Book of Mosiah” in FARMS Review 18/1 (2006)

[13] See Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: Of ‘Galileo Events,’ Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and its History” in FARMS Review: 15/2 (2003)