Receiving Priesthood by direct revelation

[Luke]

Having the Melchizedek Priesthood does not authorize one to do all things the priesthood can do. There are still keys that exist under the umbrella of the priesthood, but separate from it.

You are simply wrong.

The keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood are not seperate from the Melchizedek Priesthood.

You simply don't understand Priesthood.

I can exhaustively quote the Scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith to prove my contentions on the subject of Priesthood, but you have evidently got nothing.

I'm bringing this debate to to a close, unless you can provide some evidence for what you've just said, because it's getting really tiring now.

[InfoWarrior82]

Alma and King Benjamin tag-teaming, eh?

I can only tell you what the scriptures say:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Abinadi and Alma the Elder were both.. non prophets? I'm confused. Where they "mini-prophets" ?

I'm not sure what part of "Alma was a prophet after Mosiah" you're misunderstanding. I'll quote the passage again:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Mosiah was the prophet during the time of Abinadi, not Abinadi.

I'm talking about Alma the Elder. Alma the Younger took over as the sole prophet of the Nephites after Mosiah #2 's death. So what was Alma the Elder? A mini-prophet?

What would you call Abinadi? A preacher?

[Artaxerxes]

I can only tell you what the scriptures say:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Abinadi and Alma the Elder were both.. non prophets? I'm confused. Where they "mini-prophets" ?

I'm not sure what part of "Alma was a prophet after Mosiah" you're misunderstanding. I'll quote the passage again:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Mosiah was the prophet during the time of Abinadi, not Abinadi.

I'm talking about Alma the Elder. Alma the Younger took over as the sole prophet of the Nephites after Mosiah #2 's death. So what was Alma the Elder? A mini-prophet?

What would you call Abinadi? A preacher?

Alma the elder took over leadership of the church from Mosiah.

I call him Abinadi.

[InfoWarrior82]

Abinadi and Alma the Elder were both.. non prophets? I'm confused. Where they "mini-prophets" ?

I'm not sure what part of "Alma was a prophet after Mosiah" you're misunderstanding. I'll quote the passage again:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Mosiah was the prophet during the time of Abinadi, not Abinadi.

I'm talking about Alma the Elder. Alma the Younger took over as the sole prophet of the Nephites after Mosiah #2 's death. So what was Alma the Elder? A mini-prophet?

What would you call Abinadi? A preacher?

Alma the elder took over leadership of the church from Mosiah.

I call him Abinadi.

Okay dude.

[Luke]

I'm not sure what part of "Alma was a prophet after Mosiah" you're misunderstanding. I'll quote the passage again:
19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

Mosiah was the prophet during the time of Abinadi, not Abinadi.

I'm talking about Alma the Elder. Alma the Younger took over as the sole prophet of the Nephites after Mosiah #2 's death. So what was Alma the Elder? A mini-prophet?

What would you call Abinadi? A preacher?

Alma the elder took over leadership of the church from Mosiah.

I call him Abinadi.

Okay dude.

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

[Artaxerxes]

Having the Melchizedek Priesthood does not authorize one to do all things the priesthood can do. There are still keys that exist under the umbrella of the priesthood, but separate from it.

You are simply wrong.

The keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood are not seperate from the Melchizedek Priesthood.

You simply don't understand Priesthood.

I can exhaustively quote the Scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith to prove my contentions on the subject of Priesthood, but you have evidently got nothing.

I'm bringing this debate to to a close, unless you can provide some evidence for what you've just said, because it's getting really tiring now.

Section 132 says so. Your argument to the contrary was premised on a misunderstanding and misreading of the Nephis.

That is why keys had to be separately restored in the Kirtland temple. See Section 110. As Joseph was already a high priest, under your theory he wouldn't have needed to receive these keys. And yet he did.

That's why Joseph taught about the unique role of Elijah and his keys

Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the Authority and delive[r] the keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinan[c]es may be attended to in righteousness.28 <​It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing <​but the sons of Levi were too predjudi[ced]​>​>
And I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord &c &c.29
Why send Elijah because he holds the keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the priesthood and without the Authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1840/17

This quote destroys your entire theory. Your theory was that ALL the prophets had all of these keys. Joseph said Elijah was the last one in the old world who had it.

Finally, Section 81 makes clear that there are keys that belong ONLY to the first presidency.
"Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:"

So, the priesthood keys exist separate from the priesthood, as Joseph clearly taught.

[Sarah]

I thought the BofM spoke of only one church of Christ.

Yes... the believers.

I am fine with the idea that there can be many organisations composed of the believers, but the believers themselves are the church.

Believers are not the only part of a church organization. There are offices in the priesthood. You're basically reiterating what every evangelical/mainstream church says, that all you need is to believe and you get the priesthood, that all believers have the priesthood, that all their baptisms are valid, etc. What about the legacy of Joseph Smith and his teachings about priesthood authority, baptism and temple ordinances? What about the many stories of people coming beyond the veil to ask for their temple work to be done?

What on earth are you talking about?

I said that the term "church" = the term "believers". They are one and the same.

You make reference to the term "church" through the lens of the LDS narrative. Obviously, the word "church" can be used in the sense of an organisation, for instance "the Catholic Church". But when Jesus talks of "His church", He means His believers. See D&C 10:67, for example.

Offices of the Priesthood can exist outside of an organisation. The offices of Priest and Elder existed before 6 April 1830. This is a fact. There are then also offices in the Church such as Church President, Twelve Apostles, High Council, etc. which don't carry any special Priesthood power with them (as they "grow out of" the offices of the Priesthood, as D&C 107 states). For example, Joseph Smith stated that High Priests have the exact same amount of Priesthood as the Church President does, but they have different responsibilities in the Church organisation.

As for you claiming that I believe in the "Priesthood of all believers" doctrine. I don't. I've never said anything like that in my life. I said that God will grant unto anyone authority by revelation. The quotes in the OP make that pretty clear. Both Joseph Smith and John Taylor stated that you can have authority by revelation or by ordination, which includes through a regular organised Priesthood. Joseph Smith also said that he did not believe that it was his organisation alone that was accepted by God. He said to John Taylor that if he could find a people who had the doctrines of Christ, he had no need to baptise them.

People are at different levels of understanding. This is a self-evident fact. God gave Joseph Smith the understanding of work for the dead, setting him higher than others in understanding. We now have that understanding, and it is our job to carry out that work (and I believe that numerous groups and individuals have that authority). But it doesn't mean that those not of this understanding are any less accepted by God. For it is line upon line, precept upon precept.

I said that the BofM spoke of one church of Christ. You said, yes, it is all the believers (giving the impression that all believers belong to the same church). But then you say there can be different organizations or "churches" within this one church? You can't blame me for being a little confused about your beliefs. Is there one true church of God or not? Do you need Priesthood authority to have a church or church organization as you may put it? Logic would say that if you believe that everyone who believes is part of his church, than anyone can also baptize.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm talking about Alma the Elder. Alma the Younger took over as the sole prophet of the Nephites after Mosiah #2 's death. So what was Alma the Elder? A mini-prophet?

What would you call Abinadi? A preacher?

Alma the elder took over leadership of the church from Mosiah.

I call him Abinadi.

Okay dude.

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

[Luke]

Alma the elder took over leadership of the church from Mosiah.

I call him Abinadi.

Okay dude.

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

[LDS Watchman]

Okay dude.

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

He defends the LDS narrative just as you defend your preferred fundamentalist narrative. There's no difference.

If you aren't open to considering his viewpoint to see if you are wrong, then you are being a hypocrite for trying to shut down the conversation by accusing him of the very thing you are guilty of.

[Artaxerxes]

Okay dude.

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

You're welcome to try to explain why Joseph expressly saying that Elijah had special keys is wrong.

[LDS Watchman]

@Luke I will also add that the LDS understanding of the priesthood is well supported by the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, while yours in on shaky ground.

[Luke]

Section 132 says so. Your argument to the contrary was premised on a misunderstanding and misreading of the Nephis.

The confusion over the Nephis has zero bearing on what I've said. There are many more Scriptures I can pull out to show that there was more than one man on the earth holding the keys of sealing. In fact, an example is given in D&C 132 itself.

That is why keys had to be separately restored in the Kirtland temple. See Section 110. As Joseph was already a high priest, under your theory he wouldn't have needed to receive these keys. And yet he did.

Ok then - which keys were given in the Kirtland Temple, and to what end?

That's why Joseph taught about the unique role of Elijah and his keys

Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the Authority and delive[r] the keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinan[c]es may be attended to in righteousness.28 <​It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing <​but the sons of Levi were too predjudi[ced]​>​>
And I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord &c &c.29
Why send Elijah because he holds the keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the priesthood and without the Authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1840/17

This quote destroys your entire theory. Your theory was that ALL the prophets had all of these keys. Joseph said Elijah was the last one in the old world who had it.

I'm not so ignorant as to not have read this quotation. But I do not believe your interpretation.

These keys (keys of authority) were evidently restored by John the Baptist. He said himself that he gave that authority "that the sons of Levi may offer an offering in righteousness".

So, what keys did Elijah restore? I do not believe that they were keys of authority. I believe they were keys of knowledge. Joseph said it himself, that Elijah would come and give knowledge of the covenants:

• He [the Lord] shall send Elijah the prophet, and he shall reveal the covenants of the fathers in relation to the children, and the covenants of the children in relation to the fathers. (TPJS 321, 13 August 1843)

• Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the father to the children, and the children to the fathers. (TPJS 323, 27 August 1843)

All sealing authority was on the earth by 3 June 1831.

Finally, Section 81 makes clear that there are keys that belong ONLY to the first presidency.
"Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:"

Ok, but what does this mean? First of all, what are the "keys of the kingdom" being referred to here? In the Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, this term is used to refer to many different things.

Secondly, does it say that they are exclusively given to the Presidency of the High Priesthood? You say that this verse says that these keys are given "ONLY" to the First Presidency, but it doesn't say that. It says that they "belong always" unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood, i.e. wherever a Presidency of the High Priesthood has existed on earth, these keys have been given to them. Nowhere is a unique holding of said keys implied.

So, the priesthood keys exist separate from the priesthood, as Joseph clearly taught.

It's such a basic doctrine that the Priesthood keys belong to the Priesthood, that I'm surprised you're denying such.

[Luke]

@Luke I will also add that the LDS understanding of the priesthood is well supported by the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, while yours in on shaky ground.

It clearly isn't, or some more proof would have been provided.

EVERYTHING I say on Priesthood can be backed up by those two sources. The LDS narrative exists on the ground of concepts developed long after Joseph Smith was gone.

[Luke]

You may as well end the conversation here, because he evidently is here to argue, with no intention of trying to take into account other viewpoints to see if his might be wrong.

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

He defends the LDS narrative just as you defend your preferred fundamentalist narrative. There's no difference.

If you aren't open to considering his viewpoint to see if you are wrong, then you are being a hypocrite for trying to shut down the conversation by accusing him of the very thing you are guilty of.

I'm open to any and every viewpoint. Show me the substance and I'll believe it. But when it contradicts such basic facts which I have provided ample evidence for, it's obviously false.

[LDS Watchman]

@Luke I will also add that the LDS understanding of the priesthood is well supported by the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, while yours in on shaky ground.

It clearly isn't, or some more proof would have been provided.

EVERYTHING I say on Priesthood can be backed up by those two sources. The LDS narrative exists on the ground of concepts developed long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Not true Luke. We've discussed your views at length and they just don't hold up under a little bit of scrutiny.

You take a couple of quotes and frame them to mean what you want them to, but the way you frame them contradicts other quotes by Joseph Smith or the scriptures. Not to mention those who were personally taught about the priesthood from Joseph Smith.

[LDS Watchman]

Do you have any intention of taking his viewpoint and the evidence he presents into consideration to see if your's might be wrong or are you just here to argue?

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

He defends the LDS narrative just as you defend your preferred fundamentalist narrative. There's no difference.

If you aren't open to considering his viewpoint to see if you are wrong, then you are being a hypocrite for trying to shut down the conversation by accusing him of the very thing you are guilty of.

I'm open to any and every viewpoint. Show me the substance and I'll believe it. But when it contradicts such basic facts which I have provided ample evidence for, it's obviously false.

We've discussed your views on the priesthood at length and you have shown zero interest in listening to any evidence or views that don't support what you want to believe. Same goes for the requirements for the baptism of fire, what constitutes the Lord's true church, and several other "doctrines" you espouse.

[Luke]

@Luke I will also add that the LDS understanding of the priesthood is well supported by the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, while yours in on shaky ground.

It clearly isn't, or some more proof would have been provided.

EVERYTHING I say on Priesthood can be backed up by those two sources. The LDS narrative exists on the ground of concepts developed long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Not true Luke. We've discussed your views at length and they just don't hold up under a little bit of scrutiny.

You take a couple of quotes and frame them to mean what you want them to, but the way you frame them contradicts other quotes by Joseph Smith or the scriptures. Not to mention those who were personally taught about the priesthood from Joseph Smith.

If this is the case, then show me where I've got it wrong. I'm open to something new, if it holds up. Until then...

[Luke]

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm after truth here. This man, though, is here to defend the LDS narrative at all costs.

The Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith simply contradict too much with what the LDS Church teaches on the subject of Priesthood.

He defends the LDS narrative just as you defend your preferred fundamentalist narrative. There's no difference.

If you aren't open to considering his viewpoint to see if you are wrong, then you are being a hypocrite for trying to shut down the conversation by accusing him of the very thing you are guilty of.

I'm open to any and every viewpoint. Show me the substance and I'll believe it. But when it contradicts such basic facts which I have provided ample evidence for, it's obviously false.

We've discussed your views on the priesthood at length and you have shown zero interest in listening to any evidence or views that don't support what you want to believe. Same goes for the requirements for the baptism of fire, what constitutes the Lord's true church, and several other "doctrines" you espouse.

You don't understand the simplicity of the doctrine.

[LDS Watchman]

@Luke I will also add that the LDS understanding of the priesthood is well supported by the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, while yours in on shaky ground.

It clearly isn't, or some more proof would have been provided.

EVERYTHING I say on Priesthood can be backed up by those two sources. The LDS narrative exists on the ground of concepts developed long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Not true Luke. We've discussed your views at length and they just don't hold up under a little bit of scrutiny.

You take a couple of quotes and frame them to mean what you want them to, but the way you frame them contradicts other quotes by Joseph Smith or the scriptures. Not to mention those who were personally taught about the priesthood from Joseph Smith.

If this is the case, then show me where I've got it wrong. I'm open to something new, if it holds up. Until then...

One example of many.

You claim that Peter, James, and John didn't restore the Melchizedek Priesthood by the laying on of hands.

Yet, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young and others all insist that they did.

Yet you just wave the evidence away. Until you stop doing this, you are being a hypocrite when you accuse others of just wanting to argue and not being open to the viewpoints of others.

[LDS Watchman]

He defends the LDS narrative just as you defend your preferred fundamentalist narrative. There's no difference.

If you aren't open to considering his viewpoint to see if you are wrong, then you are being a hypocrite for trying to shut down the conversation by accusing him of the very thing you are guilty of.

I'm open to any and every viewpoint. Show me the substance and I'll believe it. But when it contradicts such basic facts which I have provided ample evidence for, it's obviously false.

We've discussed your views on the priesthood at length and you have shown zero interest in listening to any evidence or views that don't support what you want to believe. Same goes for the requirements for the baptism of fire, what constitutes the Lord's true church, and several other "doctrines" you espouse.

You don't understand the simplicity of the doctrine.

I understand what Joseph taught and what the scriptures say about these doctrines.

[Artaxerxes]

Section 132 says so. Your argument to the contrary was premised on a misunderstanding and misreading of the Nephis.

The confusion over the Nephis has zero bearing on what I've said. There are many more Scriptures I can pull out to show that there was more than one man on the earth holding the keys of sealing. In fact, an example is given in D&C 132 itself.

That is why keys had to be separately restored in the Kirtland temple. See Section 110. As Joseph was already a high priest, under your theory he wouldn't have needed to receive these keys. And yet he did.

Ok then - which keys were given in the Kirtland Temple, and to what end?

That's why Joseph taught about the unique role of Elijah and his keys

Elijah was the last Prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the Authority and delive[r] the keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinan[c]es may be attended to in righteousness.28 <​It is true that the Savior had authority and power to bestow this blessing <​but the sons of Levi were too predjudi[ced]​>​>
And I will send Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord &c &c.29
Why send Elijah because he holds the keys of the Authority to administer in all the ordinances of the priesthood and without the Authority is given the ordinances could not be administered in righteousness.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... er-1840/17

This quote destroys your entire theory. Your theory was that ALL the prophets had all of these keys. Joseph said Elijah was the last one in the old world who had it.

I'm not so ignorant as to not have read this quotation. But I do not believe your interpretation.

These keys (keys of authority) were evidently restored by John the Baptist. He said himself that he gave that authority "that the sons of Levi may offer an offering in righteousness".

So, what keys did Elijah restore? I do not believe that they were keys of authority. I believe they were keys of knowledge. Joseph said it himself, that Elijah would come and give knowledge of the covenants:

• He [the Lord] shall send Elijah the prophet, and he shall reveal the covenants of the fathers in relation to the children, and the covenants of the children in relation to the fathers. (TPJS 321, 13 August 1843)

• Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the father to the children, and the children to the fathers. (TPJS 323, 27 August 1843)

All sealing authority was on the earth by 3 June 1831.

Finally, Section 81 makes clear that there are keys that belong ONLY to the first presidency.
"Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:"

Ok, but what does this mean? First of all, what are the "keys of the kingdom" being referred to here? In the Scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith, this term is used to refer to many different things.

Secondly, does it say that they are exclusively given to the Presidency of the High Priesthood? You say that this verse says that these keys are given "ONLY" to the First Presidency, but it doesn't say that. It says that they "belong always" unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood, i.e. wherever a Presidency of the High Priesthood has existed on earth, these keys have been given to them. Nowhere is a unique holding of said keys implied.

So, the priesthood keys exist separate from the priesthood, as Joseph clearly taught.

It's such a basic doctrine that the Priesthood keys belong to the Priesthood, that I'm surprised you're denying such.

You claim that your confusion about the Nephis is irrelevant now, but it was the first piece of evidence for your claim that Section 132 is wrong. It is, of course, correct

The keys restored at Kirtland were for the gathering, the dispensation of Abraham, and the sealing keys.

They were restored because the priesthood keys exist separate from ordination to the priesthood.

If the keys were REALLY restored by John the Baptist, why was Joseph out there saying that it had to be through Elijah?

Some keys are keys of knowledge, because language was not standardized. Most of the time, keys were authority. He even referred to the sealing power as the keys of Elijah. "Then what you seal on earth by the keys of Elijah is sealed in heaven & this is the power of Elijah, & this is the differenc between the spirit & power of Elias and Elijah for while the spirit of Elias is a forerunner the power of Elijah is sufficient to make our Calling & Election sure & the same doctrin whare we are exhorted to go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works but of laying on of hands resurrection of the dead &c we cannot be perfect without the fathers, &c we must have revelations them & we can see that the doctrin of revelation as far transcends the doctrin of no revelation as knowlede is above ignorance for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in exhistance."

Elijah came to restore BOTH sealing keys and keys of knowledge.

It's such a basic thing that Joseph said time and again that keys were given separately from the ordination of the priesthood, I'm surprised you're arguing against it.

[Luke]

You claim that your confusion about the Nephis is irrelevant now, but it was the first piece of evidence for your claim that Section 132 is wrong. It is, of course, correct

Don't misrepresent what I've said. It's called being dishonest. I've never said that Section 132 is wrong - I've only said that your interpretation is wrong.

The keys restored at Kirtland were for the gathering, the dispensation of Abraham, and the sealing keys.

One was the keys of a dispensation.

The other keys were evidently keys of knowledge, because the gathering was already taking place, and sealings were already taking place.

They were restored because the priesthood keys exist separate from ordination to the priesthood.

This doesn't even make sense.

If the keys were REALLY restored by John the Baptist, why was Joseph out there saying that it had to be through Elijah?

Again, that's your interpretation of what Joseph said. I provided additional context to Joseph's words. Did you read what I quoted?

Some keys are keys of knowledge, because language was not standardized. Most of the time, keys were authority. He even referred to the sealing power as the keys of Elijah. "Then what you seal on earth by the keys of Elijah is sealed in heaven & this is the power of Elijah, & this is the differenc between the spirit & power of Elias and Elijah for while the spirit of Elias is a forerunner the power of Elijah is sufficient to make our Calling & Election sure & the same doctrin whare we are exhorted to go on unto perfection not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works but of laying on of hands resurrection of the dead &c we cannot be perfect without the fathers, &c we must have revelations them & we can see that the doctrin of revelation as far transcends the doctrin of no revelation as knowlede is above ignorance for one truth revealed from heaven is worth all the sectarian notions in exhistance."

Oh my word...

Joseph was referring to the offices of Elias, Elijah, and Messiah. He wasn't talking about what Elijah restored...

Elijah came to restore BOTH sealing keys and keys of knowledge.

Elijah never gave any sealing authority whatsoever.

It's such a basic thing that Joseph said time and again that keys were given separately from the ordination of the priesthood, I'm surprised you're arguing against it.

He didn't.

[Luke]

It clearly isn't, or some more proof would have been provided.

EVERYTHING I say on Priesthood can be backed up by those two sources. The LDS narrative exists on the ground of concepts developed long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Not true Luke. We've discussed your views at length and they just don't hold up under a little bit of scrutiny.

You take a couple of quotes and frame them to mean what you want them to, but the way you frame them contradicts other quotes by Joseph Smith or the scriptures. Not to mention those who were personally taught about the priesthood from Joseph Smith.

If this is the case, then show me where I've got it wrong. I'm open to something new, if it holds up. Until then...

One example of many.

You claim that Peter, James, and John didn't restore the Melchizedek Priesthood by the laying on of hands.

Yet, Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young and others all insist that they did.

Yet you just wave the evidence away. Until you stop doing this, you are being a hypocrite when you accuse others of just wanting to argue and not being open to the viewpoints of others.

Joseph didn't say that PJJ gave the Melchizedek Priesthood, not even once.

I read all the evidence you posted last summer, but none of it said what you said it did.

Oliver Cowdery never said so either. There's one quote from a journal which quotes him as saying such, but I have issues with the transcription.

Joseph and Oliver both repeatedly said that PJJ came and restored the Apostleship, something LESS than the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The reason that BY and others started teaching that PJJ restored the Melchizedek Priesthood is because of the emergence of the false teaching that the Apostleship was above all other authority, hence they started saying things like "PJJ restored the Apostleship, in this way they restored the Melchizedek Priesthood as the Apostleship is over all, etc."

[Luke]

From now on, I won't be responding to Atticus/Artaxerxes comments, because it's going in circles where I'm just repeating myself over and over.

I find it interesting that no-one has provided any objections to the OP.