On the Restoration, Loss, and Regaining of the Fullness of the Priesthood

[Luke]

There is a Scripture which has caused a lot of controversy in Mormonism. It reads:

• D&C 124
  28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

There are generally two camps who take a particular interpretation of this verse, as well as some surrounding history.

First, those who believe that the LDS Church lost the Fullness of the Priesthood and that they no longer possess such.

Second, those who believe that the LDS Church never lost any Priesthood.

I would like to submit my thoughts, which takes into account all the evidence, and finds a balance between the two camps.

First—we have to define the “Fullness of the Priesthood”. I’ll first quote Brigham Young. He said:

• “. . . those who have come in here and have received their washing & anointing will be ordained Kings & Priests, and will then have received the fulness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth, for Brother Joseph said he had given us all that could be given to man on the earth.” (Brigham Young, as quoted in Heber C. Kimball’s Journal, 26 December 1845, CHL)

According to Joseph Smith, the Fullness of the Priesthood is “all that can be given on earth”. This makes sense, if we take the word “Fullness” at face value, i.e. what you have is at its maximum capacity, there is no more that can be held.

Joseph also connected the concept of the Fullness of the Priesthood with the title of “King and Priest”. He said:

• “consider how great this man was when even this patriarch Abraham gave a tenth part of all his spoils and then received a blessing under the hands of Melchesideck even the last law or a fulness of the law or priesthood which constituted him a king and priest after the order of Melchesideck or an endless life.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in James Burgess’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

You can see here that this is the Priesthood to which Abraham was ordained by Melchizedek.

Concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood, Joseph Smith said that it held the highest authority pertaining to the Priesthood, and that it is the highest and holiest Priesthood:

• “. . . the Melchizedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven.
  Its institution was prior to the ‘foundation of this earth, or the morning stars sang together, or the Sons of God shouted for joy,’ and is the highest and holiest Priesthood, and is after the order of the Son of God, and all other Priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same, and are held, controlled, and directed by it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 166-167, circa 5 October 1840)

The implications of this are obvious—that it holds all lesser authority as a result of the foregoing facts.

Joseph also made it clear that those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood were “Kings and Priests”. He said:

• “Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 322, 27 August 1843)

And again:

• “There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter [Hebrews 7]
  * * *
  3d That of melchisedec who had still greater power even power of endless Life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarc only but of King or Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

Section 84 of the D&C, speaking of the Melchizedek Priesthood, states that this Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek:

• D&C 84
  14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

So, in review, there are three facts concerning the Fullness of the Priesthood:

1. It holds all authority that can be given to men on earth.
2. Those who hold it are known as “kings and priests”.
3. Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek.

As for the Melchizedek Priesthood, three facts:

1. It holds all authority that can be given to men on earth.
2. Those who hold it are known as “kings and priests”.
3. Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek.

From this, the only conclusion which can be drawn, is that the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Fullness of the Priesthood are one and the same.

Next, I want to review the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is held by some that this took place in June 1829, under the hands of Peter, James, and John. This is not so. Instead, it happened on 3 June 1831, at a conference of the Church, under the hands of Joseph Smith. To prove this, I present the following evidences.

First, from Joseph Smith:

• “On the 3rd of June [1831], the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 1:175-176)

Second, from Lyman Wight:

• “On the 4th of June 1831, a conference was held at Kirtland, represented by all the above mentioned branches; Joseph Smith our modern Prophet presided; and here I again saw the visible manifestations of the power of God as plain as could have been on the day of pentecost, and here for the first time I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the Church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney, and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood.” (Lyman Wight Life Sketch, pg. 5, enclosed with a letter to Wilford Woodruff, 24 August 1857, CHL)

Third, from Parley P. Pratt:

• “On the sixth of June, 1831 [I’ll add that the correct date is 3 June], a general conference was convened at Kirtland, consisting of all the Elders, far and near, who could be got together. * * *
  Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God, which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fullness.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Chapter 10)

Fourth, from Jared Carter:

• “Before this was that memorable day when God first gave the fullness of the high priesthood to the elders of the Church of Christ. At the interview, Brother Joseph, not withstanding he is not naturally talented for a speaker yet he was filled with the power of the Holy Ghost so that he spoke as I never heard man speak for God, by the power of the Holy Ghost spoke in him and marvelous was the display of the power of the spirit among the elders present.” (Jared Carter’s Journal, typescript, pg. 4, CHL)

Fifth, from George A. Smith:

• “They met together in June, 1831, in a log school house in Kirtland, a room about eighteen feet by twenty. While they were there, the manifestation of the power of God being on Joseph, he set apart some of the Elders to the High Priesthood.” (George A. Smith, JD 11:4, 15 November 1864)

So, what did Peter, James, and John come for? They came and gave the Apostleship, which is a calling attached to the office of Elder. It was by this authority that Joseph and Oliver had ordained themselves and others Elders before April 1830. David Whitmer said:

• “In this month [June 1829] I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an Elder in the Church of Christ by Bro. Joseph Smith. Previous to this, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had baptized, confirmed and ordained each other to the office of an Elder in the Church of Christ.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1 April 1887, pg. 32)

Brigham Young made it clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood had only been restored after April 1830, when the Church had been legally organised. He said:

• “This was a slow business, but at last he [Joseph Smith] organized the Church, for the Lord had revealed to him the Aaronic priesthood upon which the Church was first organized; after that he received the Melchisedic priesthood, when the Church was more fully organized, and a few more believed, and then a few more and a few more.” (Brigham Young, JD 10:303, 4 June 1864)

The Doctrine and Covenants states this in plainness:

• D&C 27
  12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

The Apostleship is less than the Melchizedek Priesthood. D&C 20:38 says that “An apostle is an elder”, and an elder is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, as is written in the Scriptures:

• D&C 84
  29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

• D&C 107
  7 The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Joseph Smith stated likewise:

• “And again, it is the High Priests’ duty to be better qualified to teach principles and doctrines, than the Elders; for the office of Elder is an appendage to the High Priesthood, and it concentrates and centers in one.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 21, 13 April 1833)

The long-standing tradition of our fathers has been that the office of Elder is “an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood”, but there is, in reality, no such thing. The reality is that the office of High Priest is the Melchizedek Priesthood. The terms “office” and “Priesthood”, are, in reality, interchangeable (in the context of Priesthoods).

Concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is written:

• “Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that the order of the High priesthood is that they have power given them to seal up the Saints unto eternal life. And said it was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the High priesthood.” (Far West Record, pg. 11, 25 October 1831, CHL)
  

Two things:

1. Elders do not have the sealing power in their office, hence they do not have the Melchizedek Priesthood.
2. Joseph Smith said that the Elders could be ordained to the High Priesthood—future tense.
Why has it been said that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood? First, I quote Joseph Smith:

• “All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 180, 5 January 1840)

Second, I quote again Parley P. Pratt:

• “. . . the office of an Elder is the same [as the Melchizedek Priesthood] in a certain degree, but not in the fulness.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Chapter 10)

Brigham Young explained this principle when he said:

• “A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England.” (Brigham Young, DHC 5:527, 6 August 1843)

To rephrase Brigham’s comments, an apostle holds a certain degree of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but it does not prove that he has the Melchizedek Priesthood.

While it may be correct in a way to say that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is not accurate to say so. Peter, James, and John certainly gave a portion of the Melchizedek Priesthood (as all Priesthood is Melchizedek), but Joseph and others made it clear that the Fullness was restored in June 1831.

Next, I want to prove that the office of High Priest and the Melchizedek Priesthood are the same thing:

First, I will read the following two quotes, which you can compare:

• “. . . I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the Church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney, and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood.” (Lyman Wight Life Sketch, pg. 5, enclosed with a letter to Wilford Woodruff, 24 August 1857, CHL)

• “In Kirtland, Ohio, in June, 1831, at a conference of the church, the first High Priests were ordained into the church. Brother Joseph ordained Lyman Wight, John Murdock, Harvey Whitlock, Hyrum Smith, Reynolds Cahoon and others to the office of a High Priest.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1 April 1887, pg. 63)

Compare also the following:

• “And whereas said Brown did in an underhanded, (and as we conceive) clandestine manner ordain Sylvester Hulett to the office of high priest . . .” (Nathan West, Letter to the High Council, 30 July 1834, as quoted in the Far West Record, pg. 49, 31 July 1834, CHL)

• “Br. Brown had ordained Br. Sylvester Hulet a High priest.” (Charles English, Far West Record, pg. 53, 31 July 1834, CHL)

• “Brown says that he had an impression of the Spirit to ordain Silvester to the high priesthood.” (Edward Partridge, Far West Record, pg. 52, 31 July 1834, CHL)

In the minds of the early Saints, the Melchizedek Priesthood and the office of High Priest were the same thing. You can go and read the early documents and see this for yourselves.

This brings me to the meat of the subject—did the Church lose the Fullness of the Priesthood? Again, I will quote D&C 124:28:

• D&C 124
  28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

We’ve established that the Church did indeed have the Fullness of the Priesthood by June 1831. This Scripture is undoubtedly referring to the Church. Can I prove this further? I can.

First, I’ll quote a report of an address by Brigham Young:

• “He also remarked that if any in the Church had the fullness of the Melchisedec Priesthood, he did not know it. For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest.” (DHC 5:527, 6 August 1843)

In discussing the three orders of the Priesthood spoken of in Hebrews 7, Joseph Smith said:

• “Abrahams Patriarchal power * * * is the greatest yet experienced in this church” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

He further explained that this is a Priesthood lesser than the Melchizedek Priesthood, saying:

• “Abrahams’s priesthood was of greater power than Levi’s and Melchesedeck’s was of greater power than that of Abraham.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in James Burgess’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

This was on 27 August 1843. Why did Joseph say that the Patriarchal Priesthood was the greatest that had been experienced in the Church, if the Melchizedek Priesthood had been experienced, in June 1831? There is an explanation.

On 23 April 1834, God announced that the Saints had failed to live the United Order, saying:

• D&C 104
  52 The covenants being broken through transgression, by covetousness and feigned words—
  53 Therefore, you are dissolved as a united order with your brethren, that you are not bound only up to this hour unto them, only on this wise, as I said, by loan as shall be agreed by this order in council, as your circumstances will admit and the voice of the council direct.

Just under two weeks later, this happened:

• “After prayer the Conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this church be known hereafter by the name of THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. Appropriate remarks were delivered by some of the members, after which the motion was put by the Moderator, and passed by unanimous voice.” (DHC 2:62-63, 3 May 1834)

The name of Christ was no longer on the Church. Yet Jesus plainly said in the Book of Mormon that if a Church is to be His Church, it must be called in His name:

• 3 Nephi 27
  8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

The Church was no longer the Church of Christ, it was the Church of the Latter-day Saints. By the time of 1841, when the Church had been renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Fullness of the Priesthood had been lost, as stated in D&C 124:28, and therefore, the Patriarchal Priesthood really was the highest experienced in that Church on 27 August 1843.

Having established this fact, it is time to bring some more information to the table, to get a clearer picture of history. Up until this point, I agree with the camp which states that the Church had lost the Fullness of the Priesthood. But I diverge from them here.

Joseph stated:

• “My feelings at the present time are that, inasmuch as the Lord Almighty has preserved me until today, He will continue to preserve me, by the united faith and prayers of the Saints, until I have fully accomplished my mission in this life, and so firmly established the dispensation of the fullness of the priesthood in the last days, that all the powers of earth and hell can never prevail against it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 258, 31 August 1842)

To bring the Fullness of the Priesthood to the earth and ensure that it was never lost again was Joseph’s mission. I do not believe that it was in vain. I believe that as Joseph said, God would preserve him until his mission in life was complete.

Joseph stated on 27 August 1843 that the Patriarchal Priesthood was the highest Priesthood in the Church. But just over a month later, we find that Joseph had begun to re-restore the Melchizedek Priesthood to the Saints, commencing with an ordination for himself:

• “Baurak Ale [Joseph Smith] was by common consnt. & unanimous voice chosen presidnt of the quorum. & anointed & ordd. to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood.” (Joseph Smith’s Journal, 28 September 1843, CHL)

During the next few months, Joseph would ordain his inner circle to this authority.

This was a re-restoration of that which had been first given on 3 June 1831—the Fullness of the Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood—that authority which makes one a “King and Priest”.

Some will contend that Joseph was, in fact, introducing the Nauvoo Temple endowment ceremonies. This is true. He was. What many don’t realise was that the Nauvoo Temple endowment was a more developed form of what had taken place on 3 June 1831.

The whole point of the endowment was to make someone a King and Priest. This is what had likewise taken place in 1831. This term was in usage by 1832, as is recorded in D&C 76:56-57, referring to those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom: “They are they who are priests and kings * * * And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek”.

What had taken place on 3 June 1831 was regarded as an endowment. I quote John Corrill:

• “Previous to this there was a revelation received, requiring the prophet to call the elders together, that they might receive an endowment. This was done, and the meeting took place some time in June. About fifty elders met, which was about all the elders that then belonged to the church. The meeting was conducted by Smith. Some curious things took place. The same visionary and marvellous spirits, spoken of before, got hold of some of the elders; it threw one from his seat to the floor; it bound another, so that for some time he could not use his limbs nor speak; and some other curious effects were experienced, but, by a mighty exertion, in the name of the Lord, it was exposed and shown to be from an evil source. The Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders. In this chiefly consisted the endowment—it being a new order—and bestowed authority. However, some doubting took place among the elders, and considerable conversation was held on the subject. The elders not fairly understanding the nature of the endowments, it took some time to reconcile all their feelings.” (John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, pg. 18, 1839)

Joseph had even stated that:

• “not three days should pass away, before some should see their Savior, face to face.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted by Ezra Booth, Letter written 31 October 1831, as quoted in Ohio Star, 3 November 1831)

In conclusion:

1. The Fullness of the Priesthood had been restored in June 1831.
2. It had been lost sometime during 1831 and 1841.
3. It was restored again in September 1843.

I believe that this is what all the evidence, combined, points to.

[JLHPROF]

1. King and Priest is NOT the same office as High Priest. Apples and oranges.

2. Your initial premise is flawed.
It speaks of restoration, not something restored then lost. And the reason it hadn't been restored yet is clearly stated -
28 For there is not a place found on earth

This refers to the lack of an authorized temple, something required to give the second anointing and ordain them Kings and Priests.

[Baurak Ale]

1. King and Priest is NOT the same office as High Priest. Apples and oranges.

I would agree that a High Priest, like an Elder, is itself just an office or portion of the fulness; however, the fulness does pertain to the offices of Priest and King. So it's more like apples and apple slices.

2. Your initial premise is flawed.
It speaks of restoration, not something restored then lost. And the reason it hadn't been restored yet is clearly stated -
28 For there is not a place found on earth

This refers to the lack of an authorized temple, something required to give the second anointing and ordain them Kings and Priests.

But verse 28 also clearly states "that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away." So if the initial premise is flawed it's not on the grounds of something not having been lost. The question is, when was it lost? Was it lost in the dark ages with the former-day saints or was it lost to the Latter-day Saints sometime after 1830?

I would tend to agree with Luke's take on verse 28 inasmuch as the Lord specifies that it was lost unto "you" in verse 28, which would be a stretch to apply to people who lived 1,260 years earlier.

Understanding the fulness and the office of king and priest is key to comprehending Brigham's rightful claims in the succession crisis of 1844. He was the highest ranking person who had been made a priest and king in the kingdom of God. This is manifest by his faithful participation in polygamy, which itself belongs to the fulness and is required to become a Priest and King in the fulness via the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

I would add to Luke's narrative by saying that the one of the reasons the fulness was taken away was a rejection by the church (those that knew) of Joseph's initial attempt to institute this highest ordinance and covenant.

[blitzinstripes]

So, a major issue in that argument that you laid out, is that in recent years, the church has essentially dissolved the high priest group. A man is no longer ordained a high priest unless his calling requires it. We now have 70 year old elders in my ward who will never be ordained as high priests. Your argument claimed that the calling of elder was not the fullness of the priesthood. That creates a stumbling block for the majority of the priesthood of the church who will not be ordained high priests.

[blitzinstripes]

This is manifest by his faithful participation in polygamy, which itself belongs to the fulness and is required to become a Priest and King in the fulness via the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

Yeah. That's a hard pass for me. I firmly believe that there is significant evidence (hundreds of pages of it on this forum alone) that dispute that claim and prove that Joseph denounced and never practiced polygamy, that D&C 132 is a fraudulent document, and that the men who practiced polygamy were indeed nothing more than common adulterers.

[Baurak Ale]

This is manifest by his faithful participation in polygamy, which itself belongs to the fulness and is required to become a Priest and King in the fulness via the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

Yeah. That's a hard pass for me. I firmly believe that there is significant evidence (hundreds of pages of it on this forum alone) that dispute that claim and prove that Joseph denounced and never practiced polygamy, that D&C 132 is a fraudulent document, and that the men who practiced polygamy were indeed nothing more than common adulterers.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but hundreds of pages of conjecture is hardly evidence. People try to pit Joseph's public comments against Joseph's private actions and teachings, but an examination of the doctrinal depth and complexity of D&C 132 stands alone as evidence of Joseph's revelatory handiwork. Do you think Fanny Algers was an adulterous slip up by the Prophet? God couldn't find non-adulterous servants to carry out his work until George Albert Smith came along?

I must say, it does not sound pleasant to be in a faith conundrum of your own making, believing on the one hand that 70-year-old Elders have been ordained to the fulness of the priesthood while on the other believing that this supposed fulness (let alone the Gospel and church) was preserved through the hands of common adulterers.

[blitzinstripes]

So you believe the prophet of the restoration was a shameless liar? Well that must be a little bit of a faith crisis for yourself, no? Considering he blasted polygamists and adamantly denied the practice literally till his dying breath.

Either the church is lying, or Joseph was a liar of the greatest magnitude. Choose your hill and die on it. But one or the other is undeniably the truth of the matter.

[blitzinstripes]

Currently waiting on the Lord's servant to restore the principles of truth and right the ship. Which will surely involve acknowledging and condemning the sins of the past. Thanks for asking.

[blitzinstripes]

I must say, it does not sound pleasant to be in a faith conundrum of your own making, believing on the one hand that 70-year-old Elders have been ordained to the fulness of the priesthood while on the other believing that this supposed fulness (let alone the Gospel and church) was preserved through the hands of common adulterers.

I never stated that I believed that claim. You assume a lot.

[JLHPROF]

So you believe the prophet of the restoration was a shameless liar? Well that must be a little bit of a faith crisis for yourself, no? Considering he blasted polygamists and adamantly denied the practice literally till his dying breath.

Either the church is lying, or Joseph was a liar of the greatest magnitude. Choose your hill and die on it. But one or the other is undeniably the truth of the matter.

If these are the only two choices as you see it, then I'll go with Joseph lied publicly.
Pearls before swine and all that.
Joseph wasn't always open about all his teachings - " Would to God that I had forty days and nights in which to tell you all! I would let you know that I am not a "fallen prophet."

And he had good reason - "Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy, and there are men upon this stand who would want to take my life."

[blitzinstripes]

And he had good reason - "Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy, and there are men upon this stand who would want to take my life."

I'm curious. This is an oft repeated quote. What do you think was implied by "tell you who I am"?

And I agree there were certainly men on that stand who wished to kill him, and likely did so to cover their own sexual transgressions.

[blitzinstripes]

I do not buy into the "lying for God" theory. The truth needs no defense. Especially if the Almighty God is on your side- you have nothing to fear from Babylon.

[Baurak Ale]

I must say, it does not sound pleasant to be in a faith conundrum of your own making, believing on the one hand that 70-year-old Elders have been ordained to the fulness of the priesthood while on the other believing that this supposed fulness (let alone the Gospel and church) was preserved through the hands of common adulterers.

I never stated that I believed that claim. You assume a lot.

True. I did assume that was your belief based on your other post. Turns out you were just commenting on the TBM situation generally. Got it!

[JLHPROF]

I do not buy into the "lying for God" theory. The truth needs no defense. Especially if the Almighty God is on your side- you have nothing to fear from Babylon.

You don't have to buy anything. You asked which option I believe.
That Joseph lied publicly about his practice of a high and holy command or that the next 6 leaders of the Church and virtually all the Apostles under them were serial adulterers who lied about Joseph?

I choose the first.

[Baurak Ale]

So you believe the prophet of the restoration was a shameless liar? Well that must be a little bit of a faith crisis for yourself, no? Considering he blasted polygamists and adamantly denied the practice literally till his dying breath.

Either the church is lying, or Joseph was a liar of the greatest magnitude. Choose your hill and die on it. But one or the other is undeniably the truth of the matter.

That's a false dichotomy and a false accusation to boot. Joseph was not a 'shameless liar' in keeping certain items out of the public eye through clever denials when necessary.

Joseph blasted spiritual wifery, the false idea of sleeping around consensually promulgated by Bennet and company based on Joseph's private teachings and hints about true plural marriage. Joseph taught that all sins would be forgiven except the unpardonable sin (shedding innocent blood) and that a man could have more wives than one under the fulness, and these adulterous confidants took liberties they ought not have done. Joseph did blast this teaching, which is always referred to in the early days as "spiritual wifery."

But this is not what Abraham took part in. Joseph was given to know the truth of the fulness of the marriage covenant in Kirtland. His attempt to institute it went horribly. Interestingly the Lord says he took the fulness away for a time. But Joseph was sent to restore the fulness, including the temple ordinances and polygamy. This was put to him forcefully by the angel with a sword. I've done the research physically and spiritually for myself and I conclude that the church is not lying about the origins of polygamy in this last dispensation.

[Luke]

1. King and Priest is NOT the same office as High Priest. Apples and oranges.

Yes it is. They are exactly the same thing.

High Priest = Melchizedek Priesthood = Fullness of the Priesthood = King and Priest.

Those terms all refer to the highest Priesthood. I just proved the synonymity of these terms in this post.

This is the way that those in Joseph's day understood the office of High Priest.

The office of High Priest (after Joseph's death onwards) has been diminished and put beneath the Patriarchs, Seventies, and Apostles - but in Joseph's day it was regarded as the highest Priesthood.
[/quote]

2. Your initial premise is flawed.
It speaks of restoration, not something restored then lost. And the reason it hadn't been restored yet is clearly stated -
28 For there is not a place found on earth

Let me re-quote that verse:

D&C 124
28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

Three reasons why my interpretation is correct:

1. "Restore AGAIN"
2. "That which was lost unto YOU"
3. "Even the Fullness of the Priesthood" (they had the Fullness in 1831)

This refers to the lack of an authorized temple, something required to give the second anointing and ordain them Kings and Priests.

They were Kings and Priests in 1831. They had the Fullness in 1831.

• “There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter [Hebrews 7]
  * * *
  3d That of melchisedec who had still greater power even power of endless Life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarc only but of King or Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

The Melchizedek Priesthood. The Fullness. Given in 1831:

• “On the sixth of June, 1831, a general conference was convened at Kirtland, consisting of all the Elders, far and near, who could be got together. * * *
  Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God, which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fullness.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Chapter 10)

[Gadianton Slayer]

...the next 6 leaders of the Church and virtually all the Apostles under them were serial adulterers who lied about Joseph?

Yes.

[Luke]

“Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that the order of the High priesthood is that they have power given them to seal up the Saints unto eternal life. And said it was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the High priesthood.” (Far West Record, pg. 11, 25 October 1831, CHL)

Notice the date. THAT is what was given in 1831. The power to seal up to eternal life. Identical to what the Fullness of the Priesthood is:

“. . . King or Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

"The power of the Melchizedek Priesthood is to have the power of 'endless lives'; for the everlasting covenant cannot be broken.
* * *
The King of Shiloam (Salem) had power and authority over that of Abraham, holding the key and the power of endless life.
* * *
Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam." (Joseph Smith, TPJS 322, 27 August 1843)

[Luke]

...the next 6 leaders of the Church and virtually all the Apostles under them were serial adulterers who lied about Joseph?

Yes.

Please can we not divert this thread.

[Luke]

And again, the second anointing ceremony (making a man's C&E sure) bestowed the Fullness of the Priesthood also. This understanding that receiving the Fullness made your C&E sure simultaneously was understood in 1832:

D&C 84
35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;
37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;
38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father's kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.
39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.
40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

In short, "all they who receive this Priesthood . . . receive [Christ] . . . receive [the] Father . . . receive . . . all that [the] Father hath . . . according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood"

[Sarah]

There is a Scripture which has caused a lot of controversy in Mormonism. It reads:

• D&C 124
  28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

There are generally two camps who take a particular interpretation of this verse, as well as some surrounding history.

First, those who believe that the LDS Church lost the Fullness of the Priesthood and that they no longer possess such.

Second, those who believe that the LDS Church never lost any Priesthood.

I would like to submit my thoughts, which takes into account all the evidence, and finds a balance between the two camps.

First—we have to define the “Fullness of the Priesthood”. I’ll first quote Brigham Young. He said:

• “. . . those who have come in here and have received their washing & anointing will be ordained Kings & Priests, and will then have received the fulness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth, for Brother Joseph said he had given us all that could be given to man on the earth.” (Brigham Young, as quoted in Heber C. Kimball’s Journal, 26 December 1845, CHL)

According to Joseph Smith, the Fullness of the Priesthood is “all that can be given on earth”. This makes sense, if we take the word “Fullness” at face value, i.e. what you have is at its maximum capacity, there is no more that can be held.

Joseph also connected the concept of the Fullness of the Priesthood with the title of “King and Priest”. He said:

• “consider how great this man was when even this patriarch Abraham gave a tenth part of all his spoils and then received a blessing under the hands of Melchesideck even the last law or a fulness of the law or priesthood which constituted him a king and priest after the order of Melchesideck or an endless life.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in James Burgess’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

You can see here that this is the Priesthood to which Abraham was ordained by Melchizedek.

Concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood, Joseph Smith said that it held the highest authority pertaining to the Priesthood, and that it is the highest and holiest Priesthood:

• “. . . the Melchizedek Priesthood comprehends the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood, and is the grand head, and holds the highest authority which pertains to the priesthood, and the keys of the Kingdom of God in all ages of the world to the latest posterity on the earth; and is the channel through which all knowledge, doctrine, the plan of salvation and every important matter is revealed from heaven.
  Its institution was prior to the ‘foundation of this earth, or the morning stars sang together, or the Sons of God shouted for joy,’ and is the highest and holiest Priesthood, and is after the order of the Son of God, and all other Priesthoods are only parts, ramifications, powers and blessings belonging to the same, and are held, controlled, and directed by it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 166-167, circa 5 October 1840)

The implications of this are obvious—that it holds all lesser authority as a result of the foregoing facts.

Joseph also made it clear that those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood were “Kings and Priests”. He said:

• “Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 322, 27 August 1843)

And again:

• “There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter [Hebrews 7]
  * * *
  3d That of melchisedec who had still greater power even power of endless Life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarc only but of King or Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to man” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

Section 84 of the D&C, speaking of the Melchizedek Priesthood, states that this Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek:

• D&C 84
  14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;

So, in review, there are three facts concerning the Fullness of the Priesthood:

1. It holds all authority that can be given to men on earth.
2. Those who hold it are known as “kings and priests”.
3. Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek.

As for the Melchizedek Priesthood, three facts:

1. It holds all authority that can be given to men on earth.
2. Those who hold it are known as “kings and priests”.
3. Abraham was ordained to this Priesthood by Melchizedek.

From this, the only conclusion which can be drawn, is that the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Fullness of the Priesthood are one and the same.

Next, I want to review the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is held by some that this took place in June 1829, under the hands of Peter, James, and John. This is not so. Instead, it happened on 3 June 1831, at a conference of the Church, under the hands of Joseph Smith. To prove this, I present the following evidences.

First, from Joseph Smith:

• “On the 3rd of June [1831], the Elders from the various parts of the country where they were laboring, came in; and the conference before appointed, convened in Kirtland; and the Lord displayed His power to the most perfect satisfaction of the Saints. The man of sin was revealed, and the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood was manifested and conferred for the first time upon several of the Elders.” (Joseph Smith, DHC 1:175-176)

Second, from Lyman Wight:

• “On the 4th of June 1831, a conference was held at Kirtland, represented by all the above mentioned branches; Joseph Smith our modern Prophet presided; and here I again saw the visible manifestations of the power of God as plain as could have been on the day of pentecost, and here for the first time I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the Church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney, and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood.” (Lyman Wight Life Sketch, pg. 5, enclosed with a letter to Wilford Woodruff, 24 August 1857, CHL)

Third, from Parley P. Pratt:

• “On the sixth of June, 1831 [I’ll add that the correct date is 3 June], a general conference was convened at Kirtland, consisting of all the Elders, far and near, who could be got together. * * *
  Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God, which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood had been revealed and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fullness.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Chapter 10)

Fourth, from Jared Carter:

• “Before this was that memorable day when God first gave the fullness of the high priesthood to the elders of the Church of Christ. At the interview, Brother Joseph, not withstanding he is not naturally talented for a speaker yet he was filled with the power of the Holy Ghost so that he spoke as I never heard man speak for God, by the power of the Holy Ghost spoke in him and marvelous was the display of the power of the spirit among the elders present.” (Jared Carter’s Journal, typescript, pg. 4, CHL)

Fifth, from George A. Smith:

• “They met together in June, 1831, in a log school house in Kirtland, a room about eighteen feet by twenty. While they were there, the manifestation of the power of God being on Joseph, he set apart some of the Elders to the High Priesthood.” (George A. Smith, JD 11:4, 15 November 1864)

So, what did Peter, James, and John come for? They came and gave the Apostleship, which is a calling attached to the office of Elder. It was by this authority that Joseph and Oliver had ordained themselves and others Elders before April 1830. David Whitmer said:

• “In this month [June 1829] I was baptized, confirmed, and ordained an Elder in the Church of Christ by Bro. Joseph Smith. Previous to this, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had baptized, confirmed and ordained each other to the office of an Elder in the Church of Christ.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1 April 1887, pg. 32)

Brigham Young made it clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood had only been restored after April 1830, when the Church had been legally organised. He said:

• “This was a slow business, but at last he [Joseph Smith] organized the Church, for the Lord had revealed to him the Aaronic priesthood upon which the Church was first organized; after that he received the Melchisedic priesthood, when the Church was more fully organized, and a few more believed, and then a few more and a few more.” (Brigham Young, JD 10:303, 4 June 1864)

The Doctrine and Covenants states this in plainness:

• D&C 27
  12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

The Apostleship is less than the Melchizedek Priesthood. D&C 20:38 says that “An apostle is an elder”, and an elder is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood, as is written in the Scriptures:

• D&C 84
  29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.

• D&C 107
  7 The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Joseph Smith stated likewise:

• “And again, it is the High Priests’ duty to be better qualified to teach principles and doctrines, than the Elders; for the office of Elder is an appendage to the High Priesthood, and it concentrates and centers in one.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 21, 13 April 1833)

The long-standing tradition of our fathers has been that the office of Elder is “an office in the Melchizedek Priesthood”, but there is, in reality, no such thing. The reality is that the office of High Priest is the Melchizedek Priesthood. The terms “office” and “Priesthood”, are, in reality, interchangeable (in the context of Priesthoods).

Concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is written:

• “Br. Joseph Smith jr. said that the order of the High priesthood is that they have power given them to seal up the Saints unto eternal life. And said it was the privilege of every Elder present to be ordained to the High priesthood.” (Far West Record, pg. 11, 25 October 1831, CHL)
  

Two things:

1. Elders do not have the sealing power in their office, hence they do not have the Melchizedek Priesthood.
2. Joseph Smith said that the Elders could be ordained to the High Priesthood—future tense.
Why has it been said that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood? First, I quote Joseph Smith:

• “All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 180, 5 January 1840)

Second, I quote again Parley P. Pratt:

• “. . . the office of an Elder is the same [as the Melchizedek Priesthood] in a certain degree, but not in the fulness.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Chapter 10)

Brigham Young explained this principle when he said:

• “A person may have a portion of that priesthood, the same as governors or judges of England have power from the king to transact business; but that does not make them kings of England.” (Brigham Young, DHC 5:527, 6 August 1843)

To rephrase Brigham’s comments, an apostle holds a certain degree of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but it does not prove that he has the Melchizedek Priesthood.

While it may be correct in a way to say that Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is not accurate to say so. Peter, James, and John certainly gave a portion of the Melchizedek Priesthood (as all Priesthood is Melchizedek), but Joseph and others made it clear that the Fullness was restored in June 1831.

Next, I want to prove that the office of High Priest and the Melchizedek Priesthood are the same thing:

First, I will read the following two quotes, which you can compare:

• “. . . I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the Church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney, and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood.” (Lyman Wight Life Sketch, pg. 5, enclosed with a letter to Wilford Woodruff, 24 August 1857, CHL)

• “In Kirtland, Ohio, in June, 1831, at a conference of the church, the first High Priests were ordained into the church. Brother Joseph ordained Lyman Wight, John Murdock, Harvey Whitlock, Hyrum Smith, Reynolds Cahoon and others to the office of a High Priest.” (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1 April 1887, pg. 63)

Compare also the following:

• “And whereas said Brown did in an underhanded, (and as we conceive) clandestine manner ordain Sylvester Hulett to the office of high priest . . .” (Nathan West, Letter to the High Council, 30 July 1834, as quoted in the Far West Record, pg. 49, 31 July 1834, CHL)

• “Br. Brown had ordained Br. Sylvester Hulet a High priest.” (Charles English, Far West Record, pg. 53, 31 July 1834, CHL)

• “Brown says that he had an impression of the Spirit to ordain Silvester to the high priesthood.” (Edward Partridge, Far West Record, pg. 52, 31 July 1834, CHL)

In the minds of the early Saints, the Melchizedek Priesthood and the office of High Priest were the same thing. You can go and read the early documents and see this for yourselves.

This brings me to the meat of the subject—did the Church lose the Fullness of the Priesthood? Again, I will quote D&C 124:28:

• D&C 124
  28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

We’ve established that the Church did indeed have the Fullness of the Priesthood by June 1831. This Scripture is undoubtedly referring to the Church. Can I prove this further? I can.

First, I’ll quote a report of an address by Brigham Young:

• “He also remarked that if any in the Church had the fullness of the Melchisedec Priesthood, he did not know it. For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest.” (DHC 5:527, 6 August 1843)

In discussing the three orders of the Priesthood spoken of in Hebrews 7, Joseph Smith said:

• “Abrahams Patriarchal power * * * is the greatest yet experienced in this church” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in Franklin D. Richards’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

He further explained that this is a Priesthood lesser than the Melchizedek Priesthood, saying:

• “Abrahams’s priesthood was of greater power than Levi’s and Melchesedeck’s was of greater power than that of Abraham.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted in James Burgess’ Journal, 27 August 1843, CHL)

This was on 27 August 1843. Why did Joseph say that the Patriarchal Priesthood was the greatest that had been experienced in the Church, if the Melchizedek Priesthood had been experienced, in June 1831? There is an explanation.

On 23 April 1834, God announced that the Saints had failed to live the United Order, saying:

• D&C 104
  52 The covenants being broken through transgression, by covetousness and feigned words—
  53 Therefore, you are dissolved as a united order with your brethren, that you are not bound only up to this hour unto them, only on this wise, as I said, by loan as shall be agreed by this order in council, as your circumstances will admit and the voice of the council direct.

Just under two weeks later, this happened:

• “After prayer the Conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this church be known hereafter by the name of THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. Appropriate remarks were delivered by some of the members, after which the motion was put by the Moderator, and passed by unanimous voice.” (DHC 2:62-63, 3 May 1834)

The name of Christ was no longer on the Church. Yet Jesus plainly said in the Book of Mormon that if a Church is to be His Church, it must be called in His name:

• 3 Nephi 27
  8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

The Church was no longer the Church of Christ, it was the Church of the Latter-day Saints. By the time of 1841, when the Church had been renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Fullness of the Priesthood had been lost, as stated in D&C 124:28, and therefore, the Patriarchal Priesthood really was the highest experienced in that Church on 27 August 1843.

Having established this fact, it is time to bring some more information to the table, to get a clearer picture of history. Up until this point, I agree with the camp which states that the Church had lost the Fullness of the Priesthood. But I diverge from them here.

Joseph stated:

• “My feelings at the present time are that, inasmuch as the Lord Almighty has preserved me until today, He will continue to preserve me, by the united faith and prayers of the Saints, until I have fully accomplished my mission in this life, and so firmly established the dispensation of the fullness of the priesthood in the last days, that all the powers of earth and hell can never prevail against it.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 258, 31 August 1842)

To bring the Fullness of the Priesthood to the earth and ensure that it was never lost again was Joseph’s mission. I do not believe that it was in vain. I believe that as Joseph said, God would preserve him until his mission in life was complete.

Joseph stated on 27 August 1843 that the Patriarchal Priesthood was the highest Priesthood in the Church. But just over a month later, we find that Joseph had begun to re-restore the Melchizedek Priesthood to the Saints, commencing with an ordination for himself:

• “Baurak Ale [Joseph Smith] was by common consnt. & unanimous voice chosen presidnt of the quorum. & anointed & ordd. to the highest and holiest order of the priesthood.” (Joseph Smith’s Journal, 28 September 1843, CHL)

During the next few months, Joseph would ordain his inner circle to this authority.

This was a re-restoration of that which had been first given on 3 June 1831—the Fullness of the Priesthood, the Melchizedek Priesthood—that authority which makes one a “King and Priest”.

Some will contend that Joseph was, in fact, introducing the Nauvoo Temple endowment ceremonies. This is true. He was. What many don’t realise was that the Nauvoo Temple endowment was a more developed form of what had taken place on 3 June 1831.

The whole point of the endowment was to make someone a King and Priest. This is what had likewise taken place in 1831. This term was in usage by 1832, as is recorded in D&C 76:56-57, referring to those who inherit the Celestial Kingdom: “They are they who are priests and kings * * * And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek”.

What had taken place on 3 June 1831 was regarded as an endowment. I quote John Corrill:

• “Previous to this there was a revelation received, requiring the prophet to call the elders together, that they might receive an endowment. This was done, and the meeting took place some time in June. About fifty elders met, which was about all the elders that then belonged to the church. The meeting was conducted by Smith. Some curious things took place. The same visionary and marvellous spirits, spoken of before, got hold of some of the elders; it threw one from his seat to the floor; it bound another, so that for some time he could not use his limbs nor speak; and some other curious effects were experienced, but, by a mighty exertion, in the name of the Lord, it was exposed and shown to be from an evil source. The Malchisedec priesthood was then for the first time introduced, and conferred on several of the elders. In this chiefly consisted the endowment—it being a new order—and bestowed authority. However, some doubting took place among the elders, and considerable conversation was held on the subject. The elders not fairly understanding the nature of the endowments, it took some time to reconcile all their feelings.” (John Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, pg. 18, 1839)

Joseph had even stated that:

• “not three days should pass away, before some should see their Savior, face to face.” (Joseph Smith, as quoted by Ezra Booth, Letter written 31 October 1831, as quoted in Ohio Star, 3 November 1831)

In conclusion:

1. The Fullness of the Priesthood had been restored in June 1831.
2. It had been lost sometime during 1831 and 1841.
3. It was restored again in September 1843.

I believe that this is what all the evidence, combined, points to.

I don't see how all those quotes from 1831 prove that the Melchizedek priesthood was first given then at that time to any man on earth. Yes, it was first given to men in the church by Joseph, but who gave it to Joseph?

I also don't think that "Melchizedek priesthood" and "fullness of the Priesthood" equal the same thing. The reason the "fullness of the priesthood" equals King and Priest (Queen and Priestess) is because it is the power of eternal parenthood and increase, the greatest power of all. An eternal father and mother made equal with Christ is higher than an apostle or any office in the Church. That is why it is the fullness.

The Melchizedek Priesthood also governs the government of the Church body, or church government, a large body of covenant people that the Lord wants to offer the covenants too. Priesthood authority, or priesthood keys, allows them to also give assignments to preach, teach, bless, and perfect the saints. The Priesthood gives these men power and keys to bring people to Christ through covenants and ordinances.

The office of Patriarch in the church holds the "keys of Patriarchal blessings" and not the same keys as sealing people in family relationships or gathering of Israel, or any other specific key mentioned in scripture. So the office of Patriarch in the church who holds the keys of Patriarchal blessings is different than a King and Queen, patriarch and matriarch endowed in the Temple who are authorized to be eternal parents in the covenant. The Keys of the Priesthood are given to priesthood holders to administer certain ordinances and perform specific duties and assignments in the Kingdom, not in individual family units. The "fullness" has to do with receiving the fullness of covenants and ordinances, to be sealed in the Temple as husband and wife, able to act as King and Queen of an eternal family. The plurality principle which is part of the Law of the Priesthood, had to be introduced at the same time as the everlasting covenant of marriage, because that state involves as multiplicity in all things.

[blitzinstripes]

...the next 6 leaders of the Church and virtually all the Apostles under them were serial adulterers who lied about Joseph?

Yes.

I concur.

[Luke]

I don't see how all those quotes from 1831 prove that the Melchizedek priesthood was first given then at that time to any man on earth.

Because they say that "for the first time it was manifested and conferred".

Yes, it was first given to men in the church by Joseph, but who gave it to Joseph?

Lyman Wight did. They conferred it upon each other

• "I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney, and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood." (Lyman Wight Life Sketch, pg. 5, enclosed with a letter to Wilford Woodruff, 24 August 1857, CHL)

• "Brs. Lyman Wight John Murdock Reynolds Cahoon Harvey Whitlock & Hyrum Smith were ordained to the high Priesthood under the hand of br. Joseph Smith jr.
  * * *
  Brs. Parley P. Pratt Thomas B. Marsh Isaac Morley Edward Partridge Joseph Wakefield Martin Harris Ezra Thayer Ezra Booth, (denied the faith) John Corrill Samuel H. Smith Solomon Hancock Simeon Carter Wheeler Baldwin Jacob Scott, (denied the faith) Joseph Smith sen John Whitmer Joseph Smith jr. & Sidney Rigdon were ordained to the High Priesthood under the hand of br. Lyman Wight" (Far West Record, pg. 4, 3 June 1831, CHL)

Look at the way that the event is described in his first history:

• "​<firstly​> he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of—Aangels to adminster the letter of the Law <​Gospel—​> <​—the Law and commandments as they were given unto him—​> and in ​<the>​ ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high" (History, circa Summer 1832, pg. 1, JSP)

"Thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels" (i.e. John the Baptist, PJJ)

"Fourthly a confirmation and reception of the High Priesthood . . . from on high"

In other words, a direct revelation was given to JS to hold and also restore this authority:

• "The Lord made manifest to Joseph that it was necessary that such of the elders as were considered worthy, should be ordained to the high priesthood." (John Whitmer History, Chapter 7)

I also don't think that "Melchizedek priesthood" and "fullness of the Priesthood" equal the same thing.

But they are. I spent the first part of this post proving that.

Fullness of the Priesthood = King and Priest
Melchizedek Priesthood = King and Priest

The reason the "fullness of the priesthood" equals King and Priest (Queen and Priestess) is because it is the power of eternal parenthood and increase, the greatest power of all. An eternal father and mother made equal with Christ is higher than an apostle or any office in the Church. That is why it is the fullness.

Joseph Smith clearly defined King and Priest as being one holding the power to seal one up to eternal life (in this life).

The Melchizedek Priesthood also governs the government of the Church body, or church government, a large body of covenant people that the Lord wants to offer the covenants too. Priesthood authority, or priesthood keys, allows them to also give assignments to preach, teach, bless, and perfect the saints. The Priesthood gives these men power and keys to bring people to Christ through covenants and ordinances.

I don't believe that it is Priesthood that gives one authority in the Church structure, only an organisational office. No power ought to be maintained by virtue of Priesthood. Joseph made the distinction between Priesthood offices and organisational offices very clear.

The office of Patriarch in the church holds the "keys of Patriarchal blessings" and not the same keys as sealing people in family relationships or gathering of Israel, or any other specific key mentioned in scripture.

Patriarchs are actually given the power to seal their children in marriage. See Joseph's revelation from 27 July 1842.

So the office of Patriarch in the church who holds the keys of Patriarchal blessings is different than a King and Queen, patriarch and matriarch endowed in the Temple who are authorized to be eternal parents in the covenant. The Keys of the Priesthood are given to priesthood holders to administer certain ordinances and perform specific duties and assignments in the Kingdom, not in individual family units. The "fullness" has to do with receiving the fullness of covenants and ordinances, to be sealed in the Temple as husband and wife, able to act as King and Queen of an eternal family. The plurality principle which is part of the Law of the Priesthood, had to be introduced at the same time as the everlasting covenant of marriage, because that state involves as multiplicity in all things.

Obviously Patriarchs are under Kings and Priests.

[InfoWarrior82]

Does the condemnation of the church by the Lord in D&C 84 have anything to do with the loss of priesthood? Or perhaps revocation of certain aspects of it? If we are still under this condemnation (of not following the truths in the BOM), how does this affect the state of the priesthood today if any?

[JLHPROF]

1. King and Priest is NOT the same office as High Priest. Apples and oranges.

Yes it is. They are exactly the same thing.

High Priest = Melchizedek Priesthood = Fullness of the Priesthood = King and Priest.

Those terms all refer to the highest Priesthood. I just proved the synonymity of these terms in this post.

This is the way that those in Joseph's day understood the office of High Priest.

Sorry, no. History disagrees with you.
There were MANY High Priests in the Church from 1831 to 1843, including the names you list from that meeting.
There were NO Kings and Priests in the Church before 1843 because the ordinance involved hadn't been restored.

Additionally the ordinance for creating and High Priest is very different from the one creating a King and Priest. There are elements involved with making a King and Priest that were not even practiced in the Church in 1831.