In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, Joseph Smith himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology, the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill Joseph Smith' shoes should he die. All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.
Three quick questions:
1. Who is Ahman Christ? 2. Will the Smiths return to Israel as the Royal Family? 3. Are these ideas part of the deep red meat of Mormonism?
1. It’s modern teenage English - “Ahhh man, Christ” 2. No. It’s now a fight between the Marriotts, the Hunstmans and the Romneys, with the Clapton’s as the outside dark horse. 3. Stick to milk please. But not striplings.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
1. According to Joseph Smith, Ahman is the name of God in the pure or Adamic language.
2. The royal Smith family didn't work out very well did it? Joseph Smith III led the RLDS church but wasn't ordained King as far as I know, while Brigham and John Taylor were ordained kings in the LDS church, I believe. David Hyrum Smith also was never ordained a King and didn't lead any church as far as I understand. The presiding Patriarch office was filled by Smiths up until the office wasn't filled, so now those lineal ideas have all but disappeared. The point was made on the MD&D board that the position could still be filled in the future, but that doesn't seem likely to me, and Consiglieri had some good thoughts on that in his Radio Free Mormon podcast.
3. Definitely deep, please don't talk about this ever, doctrine.
Why does "deep red meat" have to be the analogy? Why not pork? Have you ever tried Southern BBQ pork?
I realize pork is considered a "red meat" but I think you were limiting this to beef when you said "deep red", moksha.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:I realize pork is considered a "red meat" but I think you were limiting this to beef when you said "deep red", moksha.
Zeezrom, if pork can be the "other white and delightsome meat" then Royal Family Theology should be considered, as the Reformed Egyptians say, Mu Shu good.
Benjamin, hope someone could start a thread about the Consiglieri podcast over there, but let someone else put their head on the potential chopping block. It is a worthy topic but it might bring out the testimony squad and who knows what else.
In Mormon theology, a King in the kingdom of Israel is a priesthood position. Notably, Joseph Smith himself was ordained as a King in this sense in the Council of Fifty, also known in revelation as the "The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ." According to Nauvoo theology, the priesthood role of King was the ultimate leader of the Church, and according to contemporary accounts, Hyrum Smith was to fill Joseph Smith' shoes should he die.All of this together gives a pretty clear answer to the lineal priesthood mentioned in D&C 86. The Smith family was a royal family in Israel destined to lead the restoration.
Three quick questions:
1. Who is Ahman Christ? 2. Will the Smiths return to Israel as the Royal Family? 3. Are these ideas part of the deep red meat of Mormonism?
D&C 86 is addressed to all priesthood holders in the Church, not just to Joseph Smith. The first verse makes that clear enough. D&C 86: 8–10 applies to all priesthood holders. Why are Mormon critics so unintelligent they can’t see something as plain and obvious as that?
zerinus wrote:D&C 86 is addressed to all priesthood holders in the Church, not just to Joseph Smith. The first verse makes that clear enough. D&C 86: 8–10 applies to all priesthood holders. Why are Mormon critics so unintelligent they can’t see something as plain and obvious as that?
D&C 86 verse 8.
8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—
That’s not all Priesthood holders. That’s only Priesthood holders who were born into the Church and who had Priesthood holding fathers.
Why are you so unintelligent that you can’t see something as plain and obvious as that?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Hi, this discussion has already gone on in the other thread. Before I respond, I'd like to point out that you've come out swinging at me as "so unintelligent that [I] can't see something so plain and obvious..." I think we're all allowed to make mistakes, so let's point things out intelligently and see if others respond in kind rather than hurl insults from the get go. Also, though I certainly am a critical thinker, I'm not a full-on critic. I am an active member of the church, just with some very different view points than your typical TBM.
Anyways, here is the relevant discussion:
Yes, section 86 is addressed in plural, an important fact that I missed. My mistake!
Looking into the plural aspect of the revelation has already turned up some interesting information, but before I launch into that, I'd just like to point out that the other significant idea of this thread, that Joseph Smith believed himself to be of the lineage of Jesse/David and that his unborn son would be the new King David leading the church (and probably the world or something like that), is true whether D&C 86 is referring specifically to Joseph or not.In terms of the plural address in D&C 86, some pertinent information about audience is found in the source document linked to by Hope above. A short note following the revelation reads:
Kirtland December 6th. A[D] 1932 given by Joseph the seer and writen by Sidney the scribe an[d] Councellor, & Transcribed by Frederick assistent scribe and counceller
Frederick William's transcription occurred sometime in January or February of 1833 according to the JSP source note, which means the only two names specifically tied to this revelation's reception are Joseph and Sidney. Essentially, there is an argument to be made that the plural address of this revelation is specifically to Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon. If true, this could be seen as a follow up to an event earlier in 1832 in which Sidney Rigdon preached that the keys of the kingdom had been taken from the church, after which Joseph Smith corrected him. This was no small matter apparently, and Joseph Smith prophecied that Rigdon would be afflicted by Satan. Some weeks later Rigdon was spiritually attacked while laying in bed, and then still later Rigdon was reordained by Joseph Smith, who was satisfied with Rigdon's repentance. From start to finish, this all apparently happened in July of 1832. Whatever Rigdon's doubts about the keys may have been, would have been nullified by a right to priesthood if they "were lawful heirs according to the flesh."
The Abrahamic right to priesthood in 2:11 is a probably also relevant. After pondering this discussion for a while I am leaning more and more towards this Abrahamic interpretation or a general lineage of Joseph (son of Jacob) interpretation. Both of these general lineages and their right to priesthood, leadership, or ability to assist in the restoration seem to have been in the air in the mid 1830s. Anyways, my guess is that this revelation is addressed to Joseph Smith and Rigdon, and it's pointing out their lineal (whether that be through Abraham or more specifically through Joseph) rights to lead in the priesthood.
Also, I don't believe this verse was originally intended to be understood as a blanket starement that applied to all male church members. It was likely originally understood by Joseph and Sidney to apply them or an elite priesthood leadership only. I believe in the early church these lineages were seen as special or particular (pure blood of Joseph is even mentioned in some of the patriarchal blessings), where today the lineage of Abraham is an assumed default for all church.
Anyways, the plural address of D&C 86 definitely muddies the waters, but is a really interesting insight none the less to early Mormon thought on lineal rights to priesthood. Either way, my larger points definitely still stand: the lineal priesthood position of presiding patriarch emerges in the Smith family, and the maybe the most interesting piece of it is that Joseph appeared to have believed that his priesthood office of King was tied to a lineage traced back to King David, and that Joseph Smith' son David would someday fill that role.