Interpreting Interpreter
Portions of Priesthood

The Takeaway

Thompson argues that the apparent contradictions in the modern restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood reflect a consistent order in which portions of priesthood authority are granted to accomplish specific purposes, with the authority of apostles (to establish new church units), elders (to confirm the churches by giving the gift of the Holy Ghost), and high priests (to govern God’s kingdom) culminating in a fullness of priesthood power as outlined in the ordinances of the temple.

The Summary

In this article, John S. Thompson discusses four historical sources pertaining to the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, and the confusion these sources have created among modern scholars. Some scholars have concluded that these seemingly contradictory claims represent Joseph’s own evolving view of priesthood authority, with a male-based and office-oriented (i.e., ecclesiastical) view of the priesthood being supplanted by the more equitable, cosmological perspective we see in the temple. Thompson instead argues (building on the work of previous scholars) that these claims reflect an underlying consistency in how different aspects of the Melchizedek priesthood were treated anciently, with different portions of that priesthood being restored at different times and for specific purposes. These portions are outlined as follows:

• The office of Apostle. The first title of authority claimed by Joseph and Oliver (in June 1829) is also the first authority granted by Christ to his disciples, in both the Old World and the New. In each case these apostles were intended to establish new churches in “the wilderness”, rather than to regulate the affairs of an already-established church, often following the preparatory work of the lesser priesthood (e.g., that of John the Baptist). The initial calling of modern apostles precedes the formal establishment of a quorum of apostles in 1835, but their basic function to establish and build up churches where none existed before was the same.
  
• The office of Elder. Aside from a late and questionable reference to an earlier institution of the office of Elder (from David Whitmer in 1887), this office is first administered in April 6, 1830, with that title first applied to Joseph in D&C 21:1. This office is associated with the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, with elders anciently ordained by apostles for the purpose of confirming and overseeing new churches. The Book of Mormon appears to show this same pattern, with authority to give the Holy Ghost provided separately from Christ’s initial calling of his twelve disciples in that land.
  
• The office of High Priest. First claimed in June 1831, this office represented a “fulness” of all the offices of the Melchizedek priesthood, and had the power to perform the duties of all other offices and had the right to preside. Thompson argues that this use of the office is consistent with the Book of Mormon and the ancient world generally. Interestingly, he suggests that the phrase “the apostle and high priest of our confession”, as applied to Jesus, communicates the same idea as Christ being the “Alpha and Omega” or “Author and Finisher”. As Thompson notes: “His apostleship is the initial priesthood in the wilderness that lays the foundation of one’s faith and his high priesthood is the final priesthood that completes one’s faith”.
  
• The fulness of the high priesthood. Thompson frames the office of High Priest, with all the other offices as its appendages, as a “complete vessel” of priesthood organization, one that has the potential to be filled with the fulness of royal authority and power. Such fulness (i.e., becoming a high priest “made sure”) requires the rites and covenants of the temple as well as extensive spiritual testing. Thompson bases this idea on Alma’s description of the Melchizedek priesthood and associated “mysteries” in Alma 12 & 13 (involving “ordinances”, plural, obtained after demonstrations of great righteousness, allowing recipients to become “high priests forever”), Alma’s and Nephi’s demonstrations of spiritual power in connection with the priesthood, the priesthood experiences of Adam, Melchizedek, and Enoch from the JST, and additional early revelations. These ideas find culmination in the temple rites that were ultimately revealed to Joseph in Nauvoo.
  

Given that this latter fulness goes beyond receiving the priesthood via the laying on of hands (and may have been available in its absence), it’s natural to wonder how the laying on of hands, which appears to grant all authority to operate within that office, relates with the temple-oriented initiations into priesthood orders. This leads Thompson to further discuss biblical priesthood practices, noting that while the laying on of hands exists in the sources, temple rituals were the normal means for transmitting priesthood and prophetic authority.

To help explain this seemingly inconsistent relationship, Thompson relies on the doctrine of justification—the idea that “one can be given a status in advance of when they fully become what that status indicates”. Through Christ, we can receive enjoy blessings at the beginning of our spiritual journey in recognition that we will eventually grow to fulfill the complete expectations of that journey. Similarly, the laying on of hands initiates us into a priesthood order and gives us the immediate authority, via Christ’s grace, to act on that priesthood, even though the fulness of that priesthood power will only later be confirmed through faithfulness to covenants and temple rituals.

Thompson also works to explain the relationship between modern ecclesiastical offices and the “cosmic” priesthood of the temple. He does so by emphasizing how all the offices are only appendages to the Aaronic priest and Melchizedek high priest and that these two “grand divisions” correspond well to the ritual (and architectural) structure of the temple, suggesting that both priestly orders—and the other offices that form appendages within them—all find their fulness in temple-connected rites and covenants. He also argues that the patriarchal order of the priesthood, (link to “Notwithstanding these two grand divisions”; page 312) (which has apparent ancient precedent outside the Bible), is also present in both the ecclesiastical structure of the Church and the liturgical structure of the temple.

As Thompson concludes:

“Some may want to see Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo endowment as…independent, perhaps even evolutionary developments. However, a careful reading of the report of the first Nauvoo endowments suggests that Smith viewed this rite as providing a map to all the ordinances, covenants, and priestly orders…with full authority to administer a kingdom of God. Such kingdoms are begun with a foundation laid by apostolic authority…confirmed by elders giving the Holy Ghost, eventually organized into a family of lineal inheritance by patriarchal rites…and then made sure by high priests having the supreme authority to make all of it efficacious in the resurrection and beyond.”

The Reflection

I find a lot to like in Thompson’s framing—a ball of apparent confusion that belies an underlying and compelling consistency, with a meaningful purpose attached to every new layer of priesthood restored by Joseph. It goes a long way toward providing a coherent alternative to the hypothesis of haphazard evolution favored by the critics. I wonder, though, if there might be a way to demonstrate the superiority of Thompson’s way of thinking. If we’re looking for examples of a man-made priesthood order, ones that seek to emulate the Christian tradition, we have on hand hundreds of potential instances. Is it possible to build a similar case for those priesthood orders, showing how their purpose and history align with ancient patterns? Maybe. But I suspect it would be a harder story to tell.

It might be easy to say that Joseph was an idiosyncratic outlier, an uncommon man in a common time who couldn’t help but create something unique and unusual. But I don’t see an a priori reason to expect the church he’d organized to be radically different from those of his legion of protestant peers. That theory also doesn’t fit with what we actually see—a priesthood and a temple rite that echo their ancient cousins in dozens if not hundreds of subtle ways, and that, incredibly, appear to fulfill their divine purpose, elevating and empowering men (and women) to act on behalf of their Savior.