Back to Home Page

A Preliminary Historical and Critial Analysis of Doctrine and Covenants Section 107

W. V. Smith

Section 107 of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants is often quoted as fundamental in determining succession in the Presidency of the Church (indeed, it was so quoted in the post martyrdom succession meetings of August 1844). It plays a role in outlining the organizational structure of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as well as some other parts of the post-Joseph Smith Mormon diaspora. The focus of D&C 107 is priesthood structure and church government. It is a remarkable document for many reasons and I will not try to cover each aspect of the text here.

In a sense, the development of priesthood structure in early Mormonism seems somewhat chaotic when compared to present praxis. Early revelations established Book of Mormon-like officers: teachers, priests, elders (the word "apostle" is used, but is defined as an elder). Within a year or so the office of deacon was added. There was no division of authority (no "Aaronic Priesthood" or "Melchizedek Priesthood"), merely named offices with different permitted practice for each one (except in the case of deacon which was allowed to do the duties of the teacher, as required). A teacher would preside in a congregation where no other officers were present. A priest would preside in the absence of elders. In practice, congregations or impromptu meetings would generally select the presiding officer from among the eligible office holders (but see below).

Duties of the various offices were at least partly like those found in some branches of Protestantism, such as home visiting of members, performing baptisms, administering the Lord's supper, etc.[1] The basic organizational structure consisted of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as "first and second elder" respectively together with the mentioned pecking order among the early offices.

Catalyst: High Priests

In June 1831, the office of high priest was introduced during a multi-day conference.[2] The office was added to the list of those already mentioned and was regarded as a higher office with duties that had not surfaced previously, particularly in the area of salvation assurance (the office was associated with the practice of "sealing up to eternal life" - an idea only imprecisely integrated with later Church praxis). Previous to this, the office of bishop had been established with certain open ended duties whose relationship to other church officers was unclear. (Edward Partridge was ordained a bishop February 4, 1831. Partridge was ordained a high priest in June, but the nature of his bishopric in that circumstance was not clear at the time.) Local branches of the church selected their leader from among branch members or they were appointed by missionaries who enrolled converts in the area. But individual priesthood offices were still without a formal internal organization. This organization would be added in November 1831 with a revelation given on the 11th at Hiram, Ohio. The original "autograph" of the revelation may be lost, but a very early copy is found in Revelation Book 1 (The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Manuscript Revelation Books 217-18). This copy is in the handwriting of John Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery. It was intended to appear in the Book of Commandments, but did not by virtue of the destruction of the printing office in Independence, MO in 1833. (See The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations vol. 2. [JSP, RT:2])

The portion of the November 11 revelation (essentially) in the hand of John Whitmer:[3]

A Revelation given at Hiram Portage Co Nov 11th 1831

To the Church of Christ in the Land of Zion in addition to the Church Laws respecting Church business verily I say unto you, saith the Lord of hosts there must needs be presiding Elders to preside over them who are of the office of an Elder: & also Priests over them who are of the office of a Priest; & also Teachers over them who are of the office of a Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, And also the deacons; wherefore from Deacon to Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, & from Priest to Elder; severally as they are appointed, according to the Church Articles & Covenants: then cometh the high Priest hood, which is the greatest of all: wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the high Priest

hood to preside over the Priest hood: & and he shall be called President of the hood high Priest hood of the Church; or in other high words the Presiding high Priest hood over the high Priesthood of the Church; from the same cometh the administering of ordinances & blessings upon the Church, by the Laying on of the hands: wherefore the office of a Bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a Bishop is in administering all things temporal things: nevertheless a Bishop must be chosen from the high Priesthood, that he may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth; & also to be a Judge in Israel to do the business of the Church, to sit down in Judgement upon transgressors upon testimony it shall be laid before them according to the Laws, by the assistance of his councillors whom he hath chosen or will choose among the Elders of the church.

This portion of the revelation resolves (in part) several issues outlined above. It creates a new hierarch, the president of the high priesthood, who would preside over the other priesthood offices of the church. It acknowledges that the Articles and Covenants (D&C 20, more or less) did not cover the ground necessary. The high priesthood is designated "the greatest of all." In the ordering of offices in section 20, this places the high priest above the other offices, deacon, teacher, priest, elder. That ordering is based primarily on who takes charge in groups. Joseph Smith would keep that ordering intact as further priesthood offices were introduced. High Priests would still constitute the office which presides. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

The president of the high priesthood essentially constituted what the Latter-day Saints would now call the president of the church. The revelation also partially mapped the office of bishop, an important feature, since Edward Partridge had been a bishop for nearly a year. The bishop should be a high priest (though he may have counselors which are selected from the elders at this point - it would not be until 1877 that bishop's counselors would be required to be high priests). The bishop ranks below the president of the high priests, which resolved a real difficulty in church administration (where did the bishop's dictates stand in relation to Joseph Smith?). The revelation introduces the idea of "keys" without using the word, by designating the president of the high priesthood as the office which controls administration of ordinances, and "blessings on the church by the laying on of hands" (perhaps a nascent reference to patriarchs as well as further defining where the bishop stood).

Two other matters are suggested by the preamble of the revelation. This revelation is an addition to the law of the church (essentially D&C 42). And it applies particularly to the church in zion (Missouri). At least part of the reason for the latter provision was the fact that bishop Partridge was a resident of Independence, Missouri.[4]

Finally, the role of the bishop in church discipline is briefly outlined. In the second part of the revelation, we find further information on church discipline and the role of the president of the high priesthood in that.[5]

Now let's consider the portion of the November 11, 1831 that appears in the hand of Oliver Cowdery in JSP, MRB (Joseph Smith Papers Revelations and Translations, Manuscript Revelation Books).

This part divides naturally into two segments, properly corresponding to what were probably two separate revelations. The first segment below ends with the first "Amen." This "Amen" terminates judicial discussion and begins a discussion of internal priesthood office structure. So, if we include the base text of D&C 69, three revelations possibly occurred on Nov. 11.

thus shall he be a judge even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion until the borders are enlarged, & it becomes necessary to have other Bishops or judges. & inasmuch as there are other Bishops appointed, they shall act in the same office. & again, verily I say unto you, the most important business of the church, & the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not sufficient satisfaction upon the decsision of the judge, it shall be shall be handed over, & carried up unto the court of the church before the president of the high Priesthood & the president of the Court of the high priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve to assist as counsellors, & thus the president of the high priesthood, & his councellors, shall have power to decide upon testimony, according to the laws of the church; & after this desision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest court of the church of God & a final desision upon controverses, all persons belonging to the church are not exempt from this court of the church & inasmuch as the president of the high priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common court of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve councellors of the high Priesthood, & their desicision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. thus none shall be exempt from the justice of the Laws of God, that all things may be done in order, & in solemnity before me, to truth & righteousness. Amen. A few more words in addition to the Laws of the church. And again, verily I say unto you, the duty of the president over the office of a Deacon, is to preside over twelve Deacons, to set in council with them, & to teach them their duty, edifying one another as it is given according to the covenants. And also the duty of the president over the office of the Teachers, is to preside over twenty four of the Teachers, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office as given in the covenants. Also the duty of the president over the priesthood is to preside over forty eight priests, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office, as given in the covenants. And again the duty of the president over the office of the Elders, is to preside over ninety six Elders, & to set in council with them, & to teach them according to the covenants. And again the duty of the president of the office of the High Priesthood, is to preside over the whole church, & to be like unto Moses. behold here is wisdom: yea, to be a Seer, a revelator, a translator, & prophet, having all the gifts of God, which he bestoweth upon the head of the chuch: Wherefore now let every man learn his duly duty, & to act in the office in which he is appointed., in all diligence. he that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand. & he that learneth not his duty & sheweth himself not approved, shall not be counted worth to stand; even so: Amen.

Beginning of Church Courts

The establishment of church "courts" finds its beginning here. There is a court of common pleas (headed by the common judge) in line with the common law courts of antebellum America and particularly in Ohio. The word "common" takes its meaning from a standard name for lower state courts of the period which heard civil and minor criminal cases (and that in turn from the English counterpart (OED: common pleas)).

The bishop is assigned this role of judge in the lower court. There may be a "jury" attached to a case in certain instances, but we will leave that for the moment. The courts of common pleas typically handled civil disputes and the bishop's court would do the same. Cases where a church member had a complaint against another member could be handled by the common court. The name implies that lesser infractions would be the province of the bishop and that any church member had access to this court for redress of complaint.

Following the set up of the lower court system, the revelation continues with the establishment of a superior court structure. The superior court is attached to the president of the high priesthood and this court functions as both an appeals court (indeed, the court of final appeal) as well as one of original jurisdiction in complex or serious cases. This court may not function without what is essentially an ad hoc twelve man jury, made up of high priests who don't have any permanent status beyond a given court session it seems. Again, this superior (supreme) court handles difficult cases of church discipline, disputes between church members or such cases on appeal.[6]

As a final provision, the president of the high priesthood may be tried, obviously not by the superior court system, but by the "common council." This is an augmented common court (i.e., the bishop) with a twelve man jury (again they are to be high priests). The bishop [7] together with his jury would pass judgement on the president of the high priesthood. One glaring lack in the provision exists. If the president of the high priesthood is disciplined, perhaps removed or even cut off (excommunicated), then how is he to be replaced? It would be some time before this would be addressed. Late in the Kirtland period (1837), the president of the high priesthood would go before the common court but by then there was some provision for succession.[8] But that discussion lies in the future. As the revelation says, "none shall be exempt from the justice of the Laws of God," a phrase which defines the jurisdiction of these courts as applying to church matters, or at least involving church members.

The judicial provisions end what was probably a separate revelation consisting of the text given above down through the trial provisions for the president of the high priesthood.

The establishment of the president of the high priesthood changed some provisions in revelations given earlier in the month. For example a revelation given November 1 outlined provisions for selecting new bishops, who were to be high priests. They were to be selected by a "conference of high priests." The text of that revelation would evolve considerably by the time of its publication in the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) due mainly to the establishment of the president of the high priesthood. But that is for another time.

Defining Official Groups

The last portion of the revelation sets out group organization for existing priesthood offices, deacon, teacher, priest, high priest. There is no provision for "presidencies" in the revelation. Each office gets a president. The sizes of these groups, ("quorum" would not be used for some time), seem small (12 for the deacons) but this was not a real issue at the time, most men when ordained at all, were ordained elders up to the June 1831 conference. Church conferences where records exist in this period would document mostly small numbers. The October 25, 1831 conference at Orange, Ohio had 12 high priests, 17 elders, 4 priests, 3 teachers and 4 deacons. The idea of having multiple quorums of deacons, teachers, priests and elders is left open, but naturally suggested by the numerical restrictions.

The high priests have no numerical restriction and the concept of "quorum" was vague, but implicit in the establishment of the president.[9]

One interesting bit in the revelation clarifies the way the early church used titles. The phrase "Also the duty of the president over the priesthood is to preside over forty eight priests" signals that the word "priesthood" was used in exactly the same way that "high priesthood" was: priesthood referred to the office of priest. Remember, there was no concept of Aaronic and Melchizedek divisions at this point.[10] When John the Baptist said "Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron" this would have meant that they were thereby made "priests." Priesthood would gradually be understood differently after 1835 and the original usage essentially lost by the 20th century. But in revelations prior to that, phrases like "lesser priesthood" (for example D&C 84:30) referred to the office of priest. Reading the revelations without that in mind causes ad hoc explanations to exist. As noted before, "high priesthood" always refers to high priest, in the revelations.[11]

After the revelation of November 11 was dictated by Joseph Smith, it did circulate to some degree and was to be a part of the proposed Book of Commandments (but didn't make it - see JSP, RT:2 as noted above.

The November 11 revelation revamped church leadership in the wake of the introduction of the high priesthood and cleared the way for an eventual decentralized expansion and local church organizations. Regulation was still not complete however. For example, would every deacon belong to a quorum? The practical answer to this was no. Far-flung branches would have a presiding elder (or in some cases a high priest or perhaps a priest) but no "quorums" within the branch. Indeed, quorums, when they became more ubiquitous were not regarded as being restricted to a given branch of the church. Eventually, when church ecclesiastical units (connected to a presiding elder or a bishop or other officer) became more common, even requiring separating boundaries, an elders quorum for example might include members from more than one such unit. Indeed, up until recent times, elders quorums often crossed unit lines by design.

Correlation, in effect, demoted Melchizedek Priesthood quorums to unit auxiliaries, and pretty low grade ones at that. Before the 1960s, high priest quorum presidents were stake level officers (not the stake president), needing an apostle (or assistant to the 12) to call and set apart. They were in some ways on a level with the stake president and in a quirky way, presided over him. Correlation in essence erased the high priest quorum and substituted basic unit level "groups" (in stakes) which no one has figured out as yet, simultaneously making the notion of authoritative "keys" a problematic concept in the process. On the other hand, while Melchizedek Priesthood leaders were placed under the authority of the bishop, they did get a little more regular responsibility. But they were clearly, and deliberately, placed under the thumb of the bishop, removing their decision powers of membership, or restricting the ability of quorum members to act in their office (quorum discipline). A very similar question arose as the Church began to revamp the priesthood office of Seventy in the latter part of the 20th century. Questions about the ability of these officiers to reorganize stakes led to their dual ordination (high priest - seventy) but left a lingering question about whether they could even be authorized to grant authority to stake presidents. Church leaders have been reluctant to appeal to D&C 107 here as they did to situate the apostles as nascent church leaders, authoritatively unveiled when church presidents die. An interesting sequence of propositions were utilized to justify the present operation of the Seventy which might be employed in the same fashion to understand the high priest group. No such narrative developed probably because of the relative unimportance of the latter.

Another point of importance is the priests quorum. It was to have a president, from among their number. As LDS know, this would be modified, the presidency of the priests quorum would eventually fall to the office of bishop, without the benefit of counselors. We'll come back to these issues.

Comparing (Unedited) Revelation Book 1 with Revelation Book 2

The November 11 revelation was copied and edited a number of times. Now let's look at what was probably very close to the original text ala Revelation Book 1 and just for fun compare it to the copy found in the Kirtland revelation book (KRB)[12]. It is important to note that the revelation was edited slightly before it was copied into the KRB (likely in 1834).

The KRB text is in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams.
Revelation Book 1 Text Revelation Book 2 Text
To the Church of Christ in the Land of Zion in addition to the Church Laws respecting Church business verily I say unto you, saith the Lord of hosts there must needs be presiding Elders to preside over them who are of the office of an Elder: & also Priests over them who are of the office of a Priest; regulating the Presidency of the Church.[13]
To the Church of Christ in the Land of Zion in addition to the Church Laws respecting church business verily I say unto you saith the Lord of hosts there must needs be presiding Elders to preside over the those who are of the office of a priest[14]
& also Teachers over them who are of the office of a Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, And also the deacons; wherefore from Deacon to Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, & from Priest to Elder; severally as they are appointed, according to the Church Articles & Covenants: then cometh the high Priest hood, which is the greatest of all: wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the high Priest hood and also teachers over those who are of the office of a teacher in like manner and also the Deacons wherefore from Deacon to Teacher and from Teacher to Priest and from Priest to Elder & severally as they are appointed according to the Church Articles and Covenants then cometh the High Priesthood which is the greatest of all wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the high Priesthood
to preside over the Priest hood: & and he shall be called President of the hood high Priest hood of the Church; or in other high words the Presiding high Priest hood over the high Priesthood of the Church; from the same cometh the administering of ordinances & blessings upon the Church, by the Laying on of the hands: to preside over the Priesthoood and he shall be called President of the high priesthood of the Church or in other words the presiding high Priest over the high priesthood of the Church from the same cometh the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church by the laying on of the hands
wherefore the office of a Bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a Bishop is in administering all things temporal things: nevertheless a Bishop must be chosen from the high Priesthood, that he may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth; & also to be a Judge in Israel to do the business of the Church, to sit down in Judgement upon transgressors upon testimony it shall be laid before them according to the Laws, by the assistance of his councillors whom he hath chosen or will choose among the Elders of the church. wherefore the office of a Bishop is not equal unto it for the office of a Bishop is in administering all temporal things nevertheless a Bishop must be chosen from the high priesthood that he may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things having a Knowledge of them by the spirit of truth and also to be a Judge in Israel to do the business of the church to sit in Judgement upon transgressors upon testamony as it shall be laid before him according to the Laws by the assitence of his councellors whom he hath chosen or will choose among the Elders of the church
thus shall he be a judge even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion until the borders are enlarged, & it becomes necessary to have other Bishops or judges. & inasmuch as there are other Bishops appointed, they shall act in the same office. & again, verily I say unto you, the most important business of the church, & the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not sufficient satisfaction upon the decsision of the judge, it shall be shall be handed over, & carried up unto the court of the church before the president of the high Priesthood then shall he be a Judge even a common Judge among the inhabitants of Zion until the borders are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other Bishops or Judges and inasmuch as there are Bishops appointed they shall act in the same office. And again verily I say unto you the most important buiness of the church and the most difficult cases of the church inasmuch as there is not satisfaction decission of the Judges it shall be handed over and carried up unto the court of the church before the President of the high Priesthood
& the president of the Court of the high priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve to assist as counsellors, & thus the president of the high priesthood, & his councellors, shall have power to decide upon testimony, according to the laws of the church; & after this desision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest court of the church of God & a final desision upon controverses, all persons belonging to the church are not exempt from this court of the church and the President of the court of the high priesthood shall have power to call other high priests even twelve to assist as councellors and thus the president of the high priesthood and his councellors shall have power to decide upon testamony according to the laws of the church and after the decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord for this is the highest court of the church of God and a final decission upon controverses there is not andy person belonging to the church who is exempt from this court of the church[15]
& inasmuch as the president of the high priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common court of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve councellors of the high Priesthood, & their desicision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. thus none shall be exempt from the justice of the Laws of God, that all things may be done in order, & in solemnity before me, to truth & righteousness. Amen. and inasmuch as the President of the high priesthood shall transgress he shall be had in remembrance before the common court of the church who shall be assisted by twelve councellors of the high priesthood and their decission upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him thus none shall be exempt from the justice and the Laws of God that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before me according to truth and righteousness Amen.----

Let's continue the comparison between the KRB (RB2) text and Revelation Book 1 (RB1) in JSP, MRB. The KRB text is in the hand of Frederick G. Williams and it suggests more strongly that indeed the November 11 revelation is two revelations. Observe that the text never uses the word "quorum." My use of the word in reference to these texts is only to provide context. The word would not appear in Joseph's revelations until the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Moreover, during his lifetime, it would be used in a much looser way than LDS use it now.

Note the comparison of the president of the high priesthood to Moses. This is not the first time a revelation drew parallels between Moses and Joseph Smith. (D&C 28) The parallel with the OT prophet is apt for several reasons. Joseph was an Old Testament prophet in a number ways, and much of his work and his visions/revelations appealed to OT prophets. From the beginning we see this in the Moroni visits and his extensive OT references. In contrast to the other restorationists like Campbell, et al., Joseph restores both the Patriarchal Old Testament and the New. The present revelation itself is a puissant example.[16]

JSP, RT volumes 1 and 2 briefly discuss the dependence of the 1835 D&C on the following texts. I recommend them to you for their accuracy and as a way to arrive at some further context for this revelation in particular.

Revelation Book 1 Revelation Book 2 (KRB)
A few more words in addition to the Laws of the church. And again, verily I say unto you, the duty of the president over the office of a Deacon, is to preside over twelve Deacons, to set in council with them, & to teach them their duty, edifying one another as it is given according to the covenants. A few more word in addition to the laws of the church and again verily I say unto you the duty of the President over the office of a deacon is to preside over twelve Deacons to sit in council with them and to teach them their duty edifying one another as it is given according to the covenants
And also the duty of the president over the office of the Teachers, is to preside over twenty four of the Teachers, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office as given in the covenants. Also the duty of the president over the priesthood is to preside over forty eight priests, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office, as given in the covenants. and also the duty of the president over the office of the Teachers is to preside over twenty four of the Teachers and to sit in council with them teaching them the duties of their office as given in the covenants also the duty of the president over the priesthood[17] is to preside over forty eight Priests and to sit in council with them and to teach them the duties of their office as given in the covenants.
And again the duty of the president over the office of the Elders, is to preside over ninety six Elders, & to set in council with them, & to teach them according to the covenants. And again the duty of the president of the office of the High Priesthood, is to preside over the whole church, & to be like unto Moses. and again the duty of the President over the office of the Elders is to preside over Ninety six Elders and to set in council with them and to teach them according to the covenants and again the duty of the President of the office of the high Priesthood is to preside over the whole church and to be like unto Moses.[18]
behold here is wisdom: yea, to be a Seer, a revelator, a translator, & prophet, having all the gifts of God, which he bestoweth upon the head of the chuch: Wherefore now let every man learn his duly duty, & to act in the office in which he is appointed., in all diligence. he that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand. & he that learneth not his duty & sheweth himself not approved, shall not be counted worth to stand; even so: Amen. Behold here is wisdom yea to be a seer, a revelator a tranlator and a prophet having all the gifts of God which he bestoweth upon the head of the church wherefore let every man learn his duty and to act in the office in which he is appointed in all diligence he that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand and he that learneth not his dury and showeth himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand even so amen

The Evolution of Priesthood Architecture Between 1831 and 1835

So far then: D&C 107 is a compilation of revelations. There are two major parts in the compilation, one from November 1831 and another from April 1835. In D&C 107 these are arranged in reverse chronological order. I've spent some time looking at the last part of D&C 107 (which came first!). Later we will look at the April 1835 segment which is of a rather different character than the 1831 segment may reflect a change in the way Joseph Smith's revelatory texts were delivered. As these two revelations were combined in the 1835 D&C, still other revelations and regulations were interleaved in these texts to form what we now know as D&C 107. But for now we consider what happened in between these two major components, i.e., between 1831 and 1835.

Between the ca 1831 texts of the November 11 revelation and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants text (section 3 of that first edition, 107 of the present edition) there were several developments. One was the important revelation of September 22, 23, 1832. (LDS D&C 84) In this revelation we see the beginnings of a taxonomy of priesthood, more nuanced than previous classifications but not yet mature.

Previous to this, the priesthood offices were merely ordered like this:

deacon -> teacher -> priest -> elder -> high priest.

The 1832 revelation reviews the two priesthoods in the church at this point like this:

1) the lesser priesthood (or at times, just "priesthood") = the office of priest,[19] and

2) the high priesthood = the office of high priest.

To make this clear, there were two main priesthood offices in the early Church at this point (1832): high priest, and priest. High priests were said to be ordained to the high priesthood. Priests were said to be ordained to the priesthood. This distinction between early and modern Mormon terminology is vital in understanding the pre-1835 revelations. While "priesthood" was still used as a designator for the office of "priest," the 1832 revelation shows some fluidity in this usage, different offices might be called a "priesthood," a usage that stuck with Joseph Smith until the end of his life, despite the changes in 1835. For example, the office of patriarch in the Church might be called a particular "priesthood" as "those who hold this priesthood are to bless Israel." "This priesthood" refering to the office of the ordained patriarch.

While it is very common in modern sermons and discussions of this section (84) to assume that lesser priesthood is actually the later concept of the Aaronic order and high priesthood is the Melchizedek order,[20] this is incorrect. That more refined and paradigm shifting notion had not surfaced at this point. As one can see, this both rationalizes but also changes considerably the currently assigned meaning of passages like this oft quoted one:

31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses--for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed--
32 And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.
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.
41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.
42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you. [Emphasis added.]

Sons of Aaron is term for the priests, sons of Moses a similar euphemism for those ordained high priests. Thus the oath and covenant, as the passage is commonly called, applies to those of the high priesthood. However, here is where the more careful taxonomy of the revelation applies:

29 And again, the offices of elder and bishop are necessary appendages belonging unto the high priesthood.
30 And again, the offices of teacher and deacon are necessary appendages belonging to the lesser priesthood, which priesthood was confirmed upon Aaron and his sons.

We find here that two subgroups of priesthood offices are now defined. One headed by the office of high priest, the other by the office of priest. The remaining offices are defined as "appendages" to these two. That is, something added to the principal idea or object, but not necessary. We see here the beginnings of the more mature taxonomy which would be laid out in April 1835. But that reclassification would be considerably more radical in a number of ways.

Making the office of elder an appendage to the high priesthood brings the elders, riding the coattails of the high priests, into the covenant cycle mentioned above. April 1835 would alter this relationship as well.

Thus, the 1832 revelation introduces the following more nuanced architecture:

The Priesthood (Priests)
The Teachers
The Deacons

The office of priest being the main office, the others characterized as appendages to it.

Then

The High Priesthood (High Priests)
The Elders
The Bishops

The office of high priest being the umbrella office, the other two offices are appendages to it in the terminology of the revelation.

Implementing the November 11 Revelation - Evolution of the "First Presidency."

Just as the November 11 revelation exists in the Newel K. Whitney collection at the L. Tom Perry Special Collections Library (BYU), so D&C 84 appears there as well as in the KRB. There is only one intriguing alternate reading in those texts and it does not apply to the passages above. Two other manuscript versions of the 1832 revelation exist but like the Whitney version, do not bear on our discussion.

The revelation of November 11 was accepted in Zion (Missouri) as an addition to the law of the church (at that time this would be seen as an addendum to D&C 42) on July 3, 1832 (see Far West Record or in JSP parlance, Minute Book 2) but remained unpublished to the body of the church. The office of president of the high priesthood stood vacant until a January 25, 1832 conference at Amherst, Ohio when it was voted that Joseph Smith fill the office. Sidney Rigdon "ordained" Joseph at the time. Between that time and March 8, 1832, Joseph Smith became acquainted with the idea of having counselors, forming a presidency of the high priesthood. A revelation received on March 5 reads in part,

unto the office of the presidency of the high Priesthood I have given authority to preside with the assistence of his councellers over all the concerns of the church [compare D&C 81:1-2 given a few days later] wherefore stand ye fast claim your priesthood in authority yet in meekness and I am able to make you abound and be fruitfull and you shall never fall for unto you I have given the keys of the kingdom and if you transgress not they shall never be taken from you. Wherefore feed my sheep even so Amen [21]

On March 8, 1832, Jesse Gause and Sidney Rigdon became Joseph's counselors. Jesse was the subject of a revelation at the time which appears as D&C 81, outlining his duties. At a subsequent conference in Missouri in April, the presidency was also sustained. The establishment of the presidency of the high priesthood hit a glitch during that summer when Jesse left on a mission, never to return, and Sidney had a mental breakdown over his continuing arguments with Edward Partridge and was removed from office for a time. [Sidney's outlandish behavior was possibly due to the lingering effects of brain damage sustained during the beating he and Joseph took in March - outwardly he may have been frustrated with his Hiram (a small log cabin near the John Johnson home) and Kirtland area living accommodations.]

In January 1833 Joseph received the following revelation:

Behold I say unto you my Servent Frederick, Listen to the word of Jesus Christ your Lord and your Redeemer thou hast desired of me to know which would be the most worth unto you. behold blessed art tho[u] for this thing. Now I say unto you, my Servent Joseph is called to do a great work and hath need that he may do the work of translation for the Salvation of Souls. Verily verily I say unto you thou art called to be a Councillor & scribe unto my Servent Joseph Let thy farm be consecrated for bringing forth of the revelations and tho[u] shalt be blessed and lifted up at the last day even so Amen. [F. G. Williams papers, CHL (dated incorrectly there as 1834).]

Williams was not formally set apart (or ordained - the terminology was fluid) until March 18.

On March 8, 1833 a revelation (D&C 90) was received which directed that Sidney and Frederick Granger Williams be Joseph's counselors. Moreover, the revelation directed that they hold the "keys" jointly with Joseph. Their role in the presidency was outlined:

6 And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom;
7 As also through your administration the keys of the school of the prophets, which I have commanded to be organized;
8 That thereby they may be perfected in their ministry for the salvation of Zion, and of the nations of Israel, and of the Gentiles, as many as will believe;
9 That through your administration they may receive the word, and through their administration the word may go forth unto the ends of the earth, unto the Gentiles first, and then, behold, and lo, they shall turn unto the Jews.
Rigdon then requested that Joseph do as the revelation stated and on March 18 both he and Williams were "ordained" to stand with Joseph, holding the keys of the priesthood.

Further evolution in the presidency of the high priesthood would take place the following year (1834) with the coming of a permanent (standing) council of high priests, the High Council. The presidency of the high priesthood were designated as supervisors of the body who in some sense acted as both attorneys and jurors. In the founding document of the institution (see D&C 102 and Minute Book 2) the presidency receives some further refinement, the counselors now able to function alone, without the president. Indeed, all three were designated presidents.

In the meantime there was a terminological shift, as well as a succession provision. David Whitmer had been identified as successor to Joseph, should he fall, and the presidency of the high priesthood at Kirtland began to be referred to as the First Presidency. The reason for the change of reference was in part the anticipation of other "local" presidencies, like the Zion presidency of the high priesthood (July 1834). The identifier "First" left no doubt which group was referred to. A number of documents were back-written to include the new name, but it was a later development. The principals understood that the First Presidency was the Presidency of the High Priesthood (of the Church).

There were some other developments in 1834 but we pass over them to the happenings of 1835, in particular the revelation of April 1835 (often mis dated March 28, 1835), received at the request of the newly formed Quorum of the Twelve. This revelation was a true paradigm shift and would create fascinating terminological fault lines that confuse and delight.[22]

The April 1835 Revelation: Realignment and Redefinition.

Joseph Smith founded two new priesthood offices early in 1835, the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy. While the apostleship had been presaged before the formal organization of the church (D&C 18) the first formal ordinations took place in February 1835. The apostles felt the need for some more detailed direction regarding their standing and duty in the church and asked Joseph Smith for such direction. Heber C. Kimball noted the experience in his journal as follows:

One evening when we were assembled to receive instructions, the revelation contained in the third[23] section of the Doctrine and Covenants, on priesthood was given to brother Joseph as he was instructing us and we praised the Lord.[Kimball journal 94B, p. 23, CHL.]

The text of the April[24] revelation takes a kind of lecture form, settling different questions, establishing terminology and the ordering of offices as well as appealing to OT-related priesthood narrative, a tradition with Joseph Smith, and combining several revelatory threads. The text of the revelation was printed in the D&C in August 1835, a printing project which had been underway for some time. Since it will be more efficient to comment on the text form people are familiar with, we use the form of the currently printed version in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants which corresponds to D&C 107:1-57.

1 There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood.
2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.
3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.
4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.
5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood.
6 But there are two divisions or grand heads--one is the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the other is the Aaronic or Levitical Priesthood.

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this passage in modern normative Mormonism. Conceptually the revelation establishes two authority "pools" from which all priesthood offices are drawn. These pools are the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Aaronic Priesthood. This revelation marks the first time that this revised architecture is used. Eighty odd years later we find Joseph F. Smith engaging in back reading it into all the early revelations. See his Gospel Doctrine chapter 9. His system is interesting, but not historical. On the other hand, it became normative in LDS thought. Not only would JFS's interpretation change the way the revelations were understood, it would change the way priesthood was given to men in the church. We will return to that later. The remark about the Levitical priesthood is curious given later reference in the revelation. But it is certainly a nod to the Mosaic era, where the Levites and the family of Aaron formed two different priesthood castes.

7 The office of an elder comes under the priesthood of Melchizedek.

This short sentence addressed a question resulting from early practice. It seems familiar from D&C 84, but recall that the system there was quite different. Its import is that the office of elder is no longer a tag-along to the high priesthood. It sections out a bit of the new category, "Melchizedek Priesthood."

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.
9 The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.
10 High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member.
11 An elder has a right to officiate in his stead when the high priest is not present.
12 The high priest and elder are to administer in spiritual things, agreeable to the covenants and commandments of the church; and they have a right to officiate in all these offices of the church when there are no higher authorities present.

The important phrases here for us are "The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek" and "High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood." The high priesthood is no longer the fount from which the office of elder springs, at least according to the April revelation. The ordering phrase is reminiscent of section 20 language.

13 The second priesthood is called the Priesthood of Aaron, because it was conferred upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations.
14 Why it is called the lesser priesthood is because it is an appendage to the greater, or the Melchizedek Priesthood, and has power in administering outward ordinances.
15 The bishopric is the presidency of this priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
16 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron.
17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Here we have a new definition of "lesser priesthood." It no longer refers just to the office of priest, as it does in D&C 84, and the offices of deacon and teacher are not styled as appendages to it, instead all are drawn from the pool of the Aaronic order. An important addition here is the office of bishop. It is now a part of the Aaronic order, not an appendage to the high priesthood as it was in D&C 84. Moreover, the OT notion of patrilineal heritage attaches to the bishopric. If a literal descendent of Aaron can be identified, he may officiate without being ordained to the high priesthood (which may still officiate in the other offices). During Joseph Smith's lifetime, no man was identified by the presidency as being in this category. It's meaning was not practical, but lies in linkage to the ancient pre-Christian world (that is, the way OT priests were verified). In Joseph's view, the offices of all former dispensations would be included in this last restoration.

18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church--
19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.
20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

The quotation from Hebrews 12 is interesting and one Joseph would repeat elsewhere a number of times (and yes, you guessed it, in a funeral sermon!). In a sense, this passage reaffirms that the ideas of D&C 84 are still valid, simply expressed in a new context. In an important way, the revelation takes what was once the sole province of the high priesthood, and spreads it out into the new authority pool, the Melchizedek Priesthood. If any of this seems confusing to you, imagine the people on the ground at the time. There is also the fun of re-reconciling these ideas by exegetes with both biblical texts and Joseph Smith's additions to that. I won't go into that here.

21 Of necessity there are presidents, or presiding officers growing out of, or appointed of or from among those who are ordained to the several offices in these two priesthoods.
22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

The presidency of the high priesthood is molded into the new formalism with a new title: the Presidency of the Church[25] or as it had already become known, the First Presidency. This is both a new and a continuing construct. Joseph F. Smith's view was that members of the First Presidency, based on this verse, must be ordained high priests (whether or not they were previously apostles - apostles who had not been ordained high priests should have this done as a matter of course in any case he said). The presidency are identified as a separate quorum. Some distance is placed between the Presidency of the Church and other high priests by this perhaps, but recall that "quorum" had a less formal import then and could designate all sorts of groups in the Church.

23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world-- thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

While early practice following this revelation suggests otherwise, the language here harks back to the 12 counsellors in the court of the president of the high priesthood (see above). Indeed, so did the high council. In fact, the Twelve are a traveling high council as later text shows. The word "quorum" appears again, which now replaces the vague terms used in earlier revelations. The Twelve as a group are equal in authority to the Presidency quorum. The word equal here has never been taken very seriously, except in terms of succession, and it was modified in 1838 in any case (see D&C 112).

25 The Seventy are also called to preach the gospel, and to be especial witnesses unto the Gentiles and in all the world--thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
26 And they form a quorum, equal in authority to that of the Twelve special witnesses or Apostles just named.
27 And every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member in each quorum must be agreed to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other--
28 A majority may form a quorum when circumstances render it impossible to be otherwise--
29 Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.

The Seventy are addressed here and we find again that as a quorum their authority is equal to the other two quorums, by transitivity, but again, the meaning here is viewed as relevant only in terms of succession. The Church Presidency is here given an ancient (OT) basis. This meshing of OT and NT was typical of Joseph, as I have noted.

30 The decisions of these quorums, or either of them, are to be made in all righteousness, in holiness, and lowliness of heart, meekness and long suffering, and in faith, and virtue, and knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity;
31 Because the promise is, if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.
32 And in case that any decision of these quorums is made in unrighteousness, it may be brought before a general assembly of the several quorums, which constitute the spiritual authorities of the church; otherwise there can be no appeal from their decision.

The judical character of these quorums is hinted at here, and also a new judicial body, the "several quorums." The meaning here is vague and has never been tested although it could refer to the "solemn assembly" motif. It could also appear in the approval schemes of new policy or revelation, as in the 1978 priesthood change.

33 The Twelve are a Traveling Presiding High Council, to officiate in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Presidency of the Church, agreeable to the institution of heaven; to build up the church, and regulate all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews.
34 The Seventy are to act in the name of the Lord, under the direction of the Twelve or the traveling high council, in building up the church and regulating all the affairs of the same in all nations, first unto the Gentiles and then to the Jews;
35 The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.

The authoritative ordering which was not implied in the earlier text is given here. Functionally, the Presidency directs the Twelve who direct the Seventy in turn. In actual fact, the Presidency has nearly always directed everybody in a broad sense.

36 The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the traveling high council.

The high councils en masse form a quorum. Never truly tested as an issue of government it nevertheless could be interpreted as a safety valve, available if the unthinkable happened. But see below where the provisions of judgement are modified in two 1838 revelations.

37 The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion.

This curious passage seems to place the Zion high council on a level, by themselves, with the Twelve Apostles. Since there is no designated Zion high council at present, the point is moot perhaps, but interesting. Moreover, the Twelve were, in this era, basically barred from messing around in stakes. That would begin to change in Nauvoo.

38 It is the duty of the traveling high council to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel, instead of any others.
39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation--
40 The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

The regulation of church "patriarchs" is given here, they are to be called by the Twelve in all large branches of the church. The patrilineal descent (mentioned in regard to bishops also) reappears here. It has never been enforced except in the case of descendants of Joseph Smith, Sr. relative to the "Patriarch to the Church" a now deprecated office.

41 This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner:
42 From Adam to Seth,...
53 Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.
54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.
56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation.
57 These things were all written in the book of Enoch, and are to be testified of in due time.

An excerpt (or perhaps a condensation) from the "book of Enoch" gives the lineal descent of the ancient patriarchs. The revelation apparently makes reference to Joseph's vision of Adam-ondi-Ahman.

The effect of the April revelation is difficult to quantify. It would (gradually) change the discursive world of Mormonism in many important ways. But the most curious thing about it, was that Joseph decided to include the November 11, 1831 revelation as a continuing text following this one in publication. The semantic tension between the two texts should be evident to the reader by now. But there were certain important elements of the November revelation which were not found anywhere else. Joseph was sensitive to charges in the past that he produced revelations at need. Preserving the text of the November revelation without major edits was important to all concerned.

The Integration of the November 11 Revelation into D&C 107

Next let's look at how Joseph and his fellow editors treated the text of the November 11 revelation when they published it as "part 2" of the April 1835 revelation above in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

When LDS D&C 107 was printed (as D&C 3) in late summer 1835, it contained both the April 1835 revelation and the November 11, 1831 revelation conjoined. However as we have seen, the terminology and priesthood architecture of the two revelations were not the same. Moreover, the November 11, 1831 revelation was added upon in D&C 107 to reflect at least some of the organizational development in the bishopric and President of the High Priesthood offices. But the terminological inconsistencies were not made coherent.

Why this was done is not clear, but what is clear is that the publication committee felt some urgency in having the November revelation in print, at least in modified form. It provided direction in a number of circumstances, connected new priesthood offices to old (observe the integration of the Twelve in regulating the priesthood in vs 58) and provided a platform to disseminate several new revelations effecting priesthood matters which also were unpublished. In the table below, the portions of the D&C which are new are highlighted in red, while omitted portions of the November 11 revelation are highlighted in blue. We generally ignore pronoun changes and most accidentals: you can find them for yourself. Any footnotes are in red to make them easier to spot. We use text and verse numbering from the modern LDS D&C to make reference easier. We turn to the texts:

November 11, 1831 revelation from JSP Rev. Book 1 D&C 107: 58-100
To the Church of Christ in the Land of Zion in addition to the Church Laws respecting Church business verily I say unto you, saith the Lord of hosts there must needs be presiding Elders to preside over them who are of the office of an Elder: & also Priests over them who are of the office of a Priest; 58 It is the duty of the Twelve, also, to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church, agreeable to the revelation which says:
59 To the church of Christ in the land of Zion, in addition to the church alaws respecting church business--
60 Verily, I say unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts, there must needs be presiding elders to preside over those who are of the office of an elder;
61 And also priests to preside over those who are of the office of a priest;[26]
& also Teachers over them who are of the office of a Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, And also the deacons; wherefore from Deacon to Teacher, & from Teacher to Priest, & from Priest to Elder; severally as they are appointed, according to the Church Articles & Covenants: then cometh the high Priest hood, which is the greatest of all: wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the high Priest hood 62 And also teachers to preside over those who are of the office of a teacher, in like manner, and also the deacons--
63 Wherefore, from deacon to teacher, and from teacher to priest, and from priest to elder, severally as they are appointed, according to the covenants and commandments of the church.
64 Then comes the High Priesthood, which is the greatest of all.
65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood
to preside over the Priest hood: & and he shall be called President of the hood high Priest hood of the Church; or in other high words the Presiding high Priest hood over the high Priesthood of the Church; from the same cometh the administering of ordinances & blessings upon the Church, by the Laying on of the hands: to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;
66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.
67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.
wherefore the office of a Bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a Bishop is in administering all things temporal things: nevertheless a Bishop must be chosen from the high Priesthood, that he may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth; & also to be a Judge in Israel to do the business of the Church, to sit down in Judgement upon transgressors upon testimony it shall be laid before them according to the Laws, by the assistance of his councillors whom he hath chosen or will choose among the Elders of the church. 68 Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things;
69 Nevertheless a bishop must be chosen from the High Priesthood, unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron;
70 For unless he is a literal descendant of Aaron he cannot hold the keys of that priesthood.
71 Nevertheless, a high priest, that is, after the order of Melchizedek,
may be set apart unto the ministering of temporal things, having a knowledge of them by the Spirit of truth;
72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.
thus shall he be a judge even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion until the borders are enlarged, & it becomes necessary to have other Bishops or judges. & inasmuch as there are other Bishops appointed, they shall act in the same office. & again, verily I say unto you, the most important business of the church, & the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not sufficient satisfaction upon the decsision of the judge, it shall be shall be handed over, & carried up unto the court of the church before the president of the high Priesthood 73 This is the duty of a bishop who is not a literal descendant of Aaron, but has been ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.
74 Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.
75 And inasmuch as there are other bishops appointed they shall act in the same office.
76 But a literal descendant of Aaron has a legal right to the presidency of this priesthood, to the keys of this ministry, to act in the office of bishop independently, without counselors, except in a case where a President of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, is tried, to sit as a judge in Israel.
77 And the decision of either of these councils, agreeable to the commandment which says:

78 Again, verily, I say unto you, the most important business of the church, and the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not satisfaction upon the decision of the bishop or judges, it shall be handed over and carried up unto the council of the church, before the Presidency of the High Priesthood.
& the president of the Court of the high priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve to assist as counsellors, & thus the president of the high priesthood, & his councellors, shall have power to decide upon testimony, according to the laws of the church; & after this desision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest court of the church of God & a final desision upon controverses, all persons belonging to the church are not exempt from this court of the church 79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.
80 And after this decision it shall be had in remembrance no more before the Lord; for this is the highest council of the church of God, and a final decision upon controversies in spiritual matters. 81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church. [27]
& inasmuch as the president of the high priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common court of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve councellors of the high Priesthood, & their desicision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him. thus none shall be exempt from the justice of the Laws of God, that all things may be done in order, & in solemnity before me, to truth & righteousness. Amen. 82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

The bulk of the changes here have to do with the revelation on patrilineal descent of the bishopric. The obvious reference here as mentioned already, is the family of Aaron with the bishop filling the role of the Mosaic priest, an office with clear lineal descent from Aaron. The rules here are essentially the Levitical rules for the tabernacle priest. Observe also the substitution of the word "council" for "court." (See the discussion above on court terminology.) That same substitution eventually took place in Church handbook instructions on church courts in the 1990s. "Courts of love" was an obsolete expression many decades ago. [28] The judgement process for a president of the high priesthood would be modified in the next couple of years after trial by fire.

Now let's look at the remainder of the revelation and the corresponding changes in the 1835 text.

The second part of the November revelation/D&C 107 contains some interesting changes which also reflect otherwise unknown revelation(s).
Revelation Book 1 LDS D&C 107:85-100
A few more words in addition to the Laws of the church. And again, verily I say unto you, the duty of the president over the office of a Deacon, is to preside over twelve Deacons, to set in council with them, & to teach them their duty, edifying one another as it is given according to the covenants. 85 And again, verily I say unto you, the duty of a president over the office of a deacon is to preside over twelve deacons, to sit in council with them, and to teach them their duty, edifying one another, as it is given according to the covenants.
And also the duty of the president over the office of the Teachers, is to preside over twenty four of the Teachers, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office as given in the covenants. Also the duty of the president over the priesthood is to preside over forty eight priests, & to set in council with them, & to teach them the duties of their office, as given in the covenants. 86 And also the duty of the president over the office of the teachers is to preside over twenty-four of the teachers, and to sit in council with them, teaching them the duties of their office, as given in the covenants.
87 Also the duty of the president over the Priesthood of Aaron is to preside over forty-eight priests, and sit in council with them, to teach them the duties of their office, as is given in the covenants--[covenants refers D&C 20 here.]
And again the duty of the president over the office of the Elders, is to preside over ninety six Elders, & to set in council with them, & to teach them according to the covenants. And again the duty of the president of the office of the High Priesthood, is to preside over the whole church, & to be like unto Moses. 88 This president is to be a bishop; for this is one of the duties of this priesthood. [29]
89 Again, the duty of the president over the office of elders is to preside over ninety-six elders, and to sit in council with them, and to teach them according to the covenants.
90 This presidency is a distinct one from that of the seventy, and is designed for those who do not travel into all the world.
91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses--
behold here is wisdom: yea, to be a Seer, a revelator, a translator, & prophet, having all the gifts of God, which he bestoweth upon the head of the chuch: Wherefore now let every man learn his duly duty, & to act in the office in which he is appointed., in all diligence. he that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand. & he that learneth not his duty & sheweth himself not approved, shall not be counted worth to stand; even so: Amen. 92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.
93 And it is according to the vision showing the order of the Seventy, that they should have seven presidents to preside over them, chosen out of the number of the seventy;
94 And the seventh president of these presidents is to preside over the six;
95 And these seven presidents are to choose other seventy besides the first seventy to whom they belong, and are to preside over them;
96 And also other seventy, until seven times seventy, if the labor in the vineyard of necessity requires it.
97 And these seventy are to be traveling ministers, unto the Gentiles first and also unto the Jews.
98 Whereas other officers of the church, who belong not unto the Twelve, neither to the Seventy, are not under the responsibility to travel among all nations, but are to travel as their circumstances shall allow, notwithstanding they may hold as high and responsible offices in the church. [30]

99 Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.
100 He that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand, and he that learns not his duty and shows himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand. Even so. Amen.

D&C 107 and Ordination Praxis in the Church

Now I will briefly consider LDS priesthood ordination practices as related to D&C 107 and the interpretive drift even a President of the Church underwent.

For the first 90 years or so of LDS church organization, priesthood ordination gradually developed into more or less the following pattern:

By authority of the Holy Priesthood and by the laying on of hands, I ordain you an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and confer upon you all the rights, powers keys and authority pertaining to this office and calling in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

This was modeled again more or less on Book of Mormon text:

In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen.

The closer we get to 1830, the simpler the form becomes. Ordinations in Ohio were quite simple: "Brother - - - we lay our hands upon thee and ordain thee an elder . . ." for example. There were some variations on this.

This was turned on its head in 1919 with the wide distribution of a collection of Joseph F. Smith's sermons and writings. We quote the following passage from that book:

The revelation in section 107, Doctrine and Covenants, verses 1, 5, 6, 7, 21, clearly points out that the Priesthood is a general authority or qualification, with certain offices or authorities appended thereto. Consequently the conferring of the Priesthood should precede and accompany ordination to office, unless it be possessed by previous bestowal and ordination. Surely a man cannot possess an appendage to the Priesthood without possessing the Priesthood itself, which he cannot obtain unless it be authoritatively conferred upon him.

Take, for instance, the office of a deacon: the person ordained should have the Aaronic Priesthood conferred upon him in connection with his ordination. He cannot receive a portion or fragment of the Aaronic Priesthood, because that would be acting on the idea that either or both of the (Melchizedek and Aaronic) Priesthoods were subject to subdivision, which is contrary to the revelation.

In ordaining those who have not yet received the Aaronic Priesthood, to any office therein, the words of John the Baptist to Joseph Smith, Jr., and Oliver Cowdery, would be appropriate to immediately precede the act of ordination. They are:
"Upon you my fellow servants [servant], in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron."
Of course, it would not necessarily follow that these exact words should be used, but the language should be consistent with the act of conferring the Aaronic Priesthood. [Gospel Doctrine, chapter 9.]

The procedure advocated by President Smith (JFS) was upsetting to many and after President Smith's death, the new First Presidency issued a statement to the effect that the "old" way (see the first block quote above) was quite as effective and acceptable as the JFS process. Of course, JFS's argument is partly without basis regarding the ordination by John the Baptist. Whether the rest of his argument is forceful was a matter of relatives.

President Smith's view of the priesthood was colored by the natural misunderstanding derived from the joining of the April 1835 revelation with the November 1831 revelation. Consider this remark from the same chapter:

Further in the same revelation (D&C 107) verses 65 and 66, we are told: "Wherefore it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the Priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church:
"Or in other words, the presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church."
It is well to remember that the term "High Priesthood," as frequently used, has reference to the Melchizedek Priesthood, in contradistinction to the "lesser," or Aaronic Priesthood.

President Smith correctly identified the (shifted) meaning of "lesser priesthood" in D&C107. But high priesthood was never shifted in meaning, in fact Joseph Smith and everyone else was using the term to refer to high priests up until he died. His successors in Utah used it the same way. JFS used it the same way: witness the letter in the series of blog posts on John Pack. (Parts 1, 2, and 3.)

In spite of the Heber J. Grant First Presidency letter regarding ordinations, later church leaders evidently found President Smith's position compelling - textual evidence suggests this was by virtue of his very influential son Joseph Fielding Smith and the latter's equally powerful son in law, Bruce R. McConkie, and it eventually became policy (officially in the 1960s). This is an interesting pattern that has been repeated in several ways in church doctrine and practice. From a recent edition of the LDS Church handbook of instruction for Church leaders:

To perform a priesthood ordination, one or more authorized priesthood holders place their hands lightly on the person's head. Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination:

1. Calls the person by his full name.

2. States the authority by which the ordination is performed (Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood).

3. Confers the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood unless it has already been conferred.

4. Ordains the person to an office in the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood and bestows the rights, powers and authority of that office. (Priesthood keys are not bestowed in conferring the priesthood or ordaining to one of these offices.)

5. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

Hence we see that the joining of the two revelations and the eventual fading of meanings influenced liturgical practice in the 20th century.

Church Discipline, D&C 107 and the Presidency of the Church

D&C 107 was a long time in the making and it contains many separate revelations woven together into the whole (and it didn't finish the story: consider D&C 112 and 124). Witness: The Nov 11 revelation, itself perhaps two separate revelations, the vision of the Seventy, the vision of Adam, the esoterica of bishops, the "book of Enoch" and others. Its story is one worth telling, not only to understand the process of revelation, but to understand the way Latter-day Saints speak and how that speech and its understanding were affected by the processes of history.

In spite of the publication of the November 11, 1831 revelation in D&C 107 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (section 3 there), that was not the end of the line for it. The trial procedures for the president of the high priesthood (or as it was altered in D&C 107, "a" president of the high priesthood) were given in terms of the common council (see above) a bishop plus 12 high priests selected for the purpose.

Two kinds of issues would drive some evolution of the concept:

(1) With the deterioration of the economy in Kirtland and the increased criticism of Joseph Smith, he was charged with financial duplicity by Lyman Johnson and Orson Pratt. [31]

(2) In Far West, Missouri, the excommunication of Oliver Cowdery (a member of the presidency of the high priesthood) took place. Cowdery claimed the court was illegal.

The first brush (1) with Church discipline and the possibility of others looming, led Joseph Smith to ask for clarification. The result was three revelations, given January 12, 1838. Since they are relevant to D&C 107, I give two of them here:

Revelation Given at the French Farm in Kirtland Geauga Co. Ohio. In the presence of J. Smith Jr., S Rigdon V Knight & Geo. W. Robinson January 12th 1838.--------
When inquiry was made of the Lord relative to the trial of the first Presidency of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, For transgressions according to the item of law, found in the Book of Covenants 3rd Section 37 Verse
Whether the descision of such an Council in one Stake, shall be conclusive for Zion and all her stakes

Thus saith the Lord, Let the first Presidency of my Church, be held in full fellowship in Zion and all her stakes, untill they shall be found transgressors, by such an high Council as is named in the above alluded section, in Zion, by three witnesses standing against each member of said Presidency, and these witnesses shall be of long and fathfull standing, and such also as cannot be impeached by other witnesses before such Council, and when a decision is had by such and Council in Zion, it shall only be for Zion, it shall not answer for her stakes, but if such descision be acknowledged by the Council of her stakes, then it shall answer for her stakes, But if it is not acknowledged by the stakes, then such stake may have the privilege of hearing for themselves or if such descision shall be acknowledged by a majority of the stakes, then it shall answer for all her stakes And again,
The Presidency of my Church, may be tried by the voice of the whole body of the Church in Zion, and the voice of a majority of all her stakes And again
Except a majority is had by the voice of the Church of Zion and a majority of all her stakes, the Charges will be considered not sustained and in order to sustain such Charge or Charges, before such Church of Zion or her stakes, such witnesses must be had as in named above, that is the witnesses to each President, who are of long faithfull standing, that cannot be immpeached by other witnesses before the Church of Zion, or her stakes, And all this saith the Lord because of wicked and asspiring Men, Let all your doings be in meekness and in humility before me even so Amen---

The next revelation addressed the possibility of "piling on" in an effort to get a majority to go against the presidency (or a president).

Revelation Given the same day January 12th 1838, upon an inquiry being made of the Lord, whether any branch of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints can be considered a stake of Zion, untill they have acknowledged the authority of the first Presidency by a vote of such Church

Thus saith the Lord, Verily I say unto nay you Nay No stake shall be appointed, except by the first Presidency, and this Presidency be acknowledged, by the voice of the same, otherwise it shall not be counted as a stake of Zion and again except it be dedicated by this presidency it cannot be acknowledged as a stake of Zion, For unto this end have I appointed them in Laying the foundation of and establishing my Kingdom Even so Amen.

These revelations tell us that "firing" a president of the high priesthood, requires a "Zion" unit to begin the process. Far West evidently filled the bill at the time. How this would apply now is anybody's guess. The council of stakes then had to approve a conviction apparently. And there could be no stacking the deck. The "council of stakes" suggests the quorum of high councils mentioned in D&C 107 (see the April revelation above), but it could mean a popular vote. In any case, if Kirtland held a common council trial and convicted Joseph and/or Sidney, it wouldn't be the final voice.[32]

Cowdery's case may have been different. He was fired in a more mundane way in November 1837 when Joseph simply didn't have him sustained as a member of the presidency at the same time that Frederick G. Williams was dropped. His subsequent excommunication might be interpreted as legal then. The policy of dissolving the presidency upon the death of the president, in force from Brigham Young's time on, obviated a repeat of the Rigdon situation.[33] One thing is clear: firing Joseph was not the same as firing his counselors!

Rigdon felt he deserved a full blown procedure in Nauvoo, but perhaps since the revelation recognized a popular vote, his case was never heard in an extended way.[34] Nauvoo may have been the Zion unit at the time?

The three revelations were read in Church conference in Missouri, and sustained there. But they were lost from view and never made it to publication.[35]

Since the Church is very much an international presence, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, how important are subtleties like this? The semantic haze around these developments thickly obscures the issues in mainstream Church literature (i.e., manuals). Is that important? Probably not, except for someone interested in the development of Mormonism. But it does promote caution in proof texting perhaps! Are the subtle organizational features and evolution preserved, can they be seen in, say, the spanish translation of the D&C? One could expand here, theologically. Interesting questions to me at least.

The Meaning of D&C 107. Church Discipline in the Modern Church.

This issue raised by the history of Doctrine and Covenants section 107 over the question of a transgressing President of the Church should be examined. The November 11 revelation (second half of D&C 107) introduced a church court system (see above). The two leading offices in the early church were the bishop and the president of the high priesthood. The revelation defined a way for each officer to be disciplined, should the need arise. This was to work by using each of the court systems attached to these officers to judge the other.

As the church matured, there continued to be only one president of the high priesthood over the entire church, but the number of bishoprics gradually increased. Since the original revelation left open what should happen in that event, some clarification was needed. The revelations in part 12 of the post made some regulation to substitute for the early method. But those revelations, while subjected to canonical vote, did not provide a lasting answer to the question: how to deal with a transgressing church president. Moreover, it was clear that people in the know saw the November 11 revelation applying to each member of the church presidency.

The Twelve Apostles had no defined role in the problem partly because they didn't exist in November 1831. The front portion of D&C 107 defines the role of the 12, but does not give them overt disciplinary responsibilities with regard to the church presidency, and in the question of Joseph Smith's trial in Kirtland, they made no appearance (unless you count a plaintiff).

The 1838 revelations made it clear that the November revelation was deprecated and was to be discarded with reference to this discipline issue. But another office was in store in Nauvoo. A presiding bishop. This bishop presided over other bishops. While revealed in Nauvoo, it was never occupied during Joseph Smith's lifetime. A naive reading of D&C 107 has led some commentators to suppose that the presiding bishop would be the judge of a church president.

In a sense, the problem disappeared with the death of Joseph Smith. Of course it was Sidney Rigdon's position that he was a president of the high priesthood and that (in essence) based on policies like those found in D&C 102, he should lead the church. A small segment of the church believed him. When the apostles assumed leadership, they weren't presidents of the high priesthood. Indeed, Brigham Young would come to describe his office as superior to the high priesthood (for example see his sermon of April 6, 1853). When the First Presidency was reformed in 1847, there was no mention of the high priesthood. Historically, the identification of the First Presidency and the Presidency of the High Priesthood was merely a convenient renaming process. With the desire to elevate the office of apostle, the old title was left behind. It's worth noting that Brigham's point of view would not stick. Joseph F. Smith would read D&C 107 in a different way from Brigham. Apostles like George Albert Smith who were not high priests prior to coming into the Quorum of the Twelve would be ordained high priests as well since JFS believed they could not preside without being high priests (a similar practice was adopted with the First Council of the Seventy decades later). Brigham would have blanched.

Still, an analogous problem existed with the new First Presidency. How would a member of the First Presidency be dealt with? By the 1890s it seemed to some of the Twelve like the presidency was not accountable to anyone. The apostles were uncomfortable with some of George Q. Cannon's activities. Only learning of some of them by rumor made it worse. Some members felt Cannon should be dropped. The very idea angered President Woodruff, but the apostles asserted themselves, partly based on D&C 107 perhaps and also maybe because of Brigham's feeling the the Presidency were merely apostles with a different assignment. The resolution of the tiff put the two bodies on a more even footing.[36] The idea that a member of the presidency could be dropped was not without precedence. It had happened twice in 1832 and twice again in 1837 (Joseph Smith attempted to drop Rigdon in 1843, but failed). Cannon of course was not dropped but reined in a bit. However, it is difficult to believe that a church president could be dropped. Instead, President Woodruff offered another solution: if a church president would go haywire, God would take him out of the mortal shell (See D&C OD1). The discipline would come from above, not below, and it would be rather permanent.

As a side note, John Taylor seems to have identified the First Presidency with the presidency of the high priesthood. For example, see JD 21:364 and Orson Pratt in JD 22:35. By the 1940s, some reference to the President of the High Priesthood (as church president) began to reappear in General Conferences. But as we have seen already, "high priesthood" by this time had morphed into a synonym for "Melchizedek Priesthood." Hence the question of applying D&C 107 becomes oddly muddled.

The finale appears to be that no formal method exists for recalling a church president. The Woodruff solution remains.

The recall of a president is unlikely for other reasons. The system of leadership presently in place in the Church makes is unlikely that a young vigorous man will rise to the senior tranche. Although President Gordon B. Hinckley, while elderly, had great vigor. Much of the well-known headline changes over the last 15 years have been attributed to that vigor. Spencer W. Kimball was a vigorous leader in his first decade (1973-1981 or so). But even in the case of a vigorous leader gone "astray" (whatever that might mean) the present system is capable of dealing with any extreme moves. Given the embedded bureaucracy in the Church, and the consensus driven approval process for big moves (something suggested by D&C 107 itself), it would be nearly impossible for the untoward to get past it. But what about speech? Could an off the reservation Church President be muzzled? It's clear that presidents who have been less functional can be isolated out of respect for their office. That happened with Ezra Taft Benson and Spencer W. Kimball.

This suggests that a presidential recall would be unnecessary except for a vigorous president who began to *speak* the heterodox. The ugly head of schism rises in this case, but it seems clear that since the Twelve have been king makers since Brigham Young (even if in a perfunctory way) they would have to act as a quorum to depose the president - the common council is really a dead issue unless the presiding bishop were rehabilitated in the November 11 reading (the January 1838 revelations would only come into play in some worst case outcome). There are all kinds of nightmare scenarios here, each as unlikely as the next.

Sidney Rigdon argued for succession based in part on the ideas of the November 11 portion of D&C 107. Brigham Young argued for succession in part based on the April 28 portion of D&C 107. Could Rigdon have made a stronger case? Possibly, but the insiders in Nauvoo knew Rigdon had problems with Joseph Smith's innovations like polygamy and unlike Young he never had any cachet in the "sealing" enterprise. Rigdon might have cited the July 1837 revelation (now D&C 112) as clearly marking out the territory of the First Presidency as superior to the Twelve. On the other hand, the same revelation suggests that Joseph would hand the "keys" to Thomas B. Marsh and the Twelve (and hence Brigham Young and Twelve). The apostles did try to reinforce their position vis-a-vis this revelation by publishing a modified version of a statement of Joseph Smith to the effect that when he wasn't around, there was no First Presidency over the Twelve. (And while that statement was an invention, it plays into the recall question in a way.)

Finally, I regard the recall provisions of the November 11 revelation as not only temporary in fact, but temporary in need. They responded to the old Protestant fear of prelate tyranny. While that fear is still occasionally voiced in Mormonism, I think a recall is still possible in several ways. Is it likely that anything like that would ever come up? Absolutely not, in my opinion. The narrative of tried and true leadership over decades of steady service is a convincing one and combined with the Woodruff doctrine and isolation in the case of mental aberration or disability it is pretty complete in theory. But whatever the case, D&C 107 is not likely to play a role in deposing a Church president.

------------------------

[1] A striking difference was the duty of elders to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The Book of Mormon makes the identification of elder and "apostle" in a sense, and that is carried forward by D&C 20. Early revelations and documents use the term apostle in reference to Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and others. It is unclear if this language recalls some specific ordination event or represents a verbal classification.

[2] Mark L. Staker, Hearken, O Ye People, chapter 12. This innovation/restoration gets very little air play in the modern church, but it was a major development. Part of the reason for this lack of attention was the careful emphasis on the apostolic office by the post martyrdom quorum of the twelve. The demotion of "the high priesthood" would help insure no official competition for church leadership. It was an effective strategy in the long run but it probably obscured the nature of church government during Joseph Smith's lifetime.

[3] Another revelation was delivered on the 11th. It would become the basis of D&C 69. The revelation under discussion here was perhaps, itself, two revelations.

[4] Another bishop would not be ordained for a month - Newel K. Whitney - Kirtland, Ohio.

[5] JSP, RT:2 shows the probable completed form of the Book of Commandments (BC), including the present revelation.

[6] Naturally one sees the beginnings of the high council system here, which would be formalized in February 1834. High Council of course, is a title originating in civil government just as "common council." Both are judicial in origin. Church government issues prior to formal high councils were handled by the ad hoc high priesthood councils.

[7] "Common Council" in public government was another name for the city council. In this case, the mayor and the bishop are parallel officers. The role of the bishop's counselors is not completely clear from the text. In ordinary cases they seem to act as lawyers, presenting the aspects of the case. Their role would evolve with further regulation such as the later development formalized in 1877 Utah that counselors to the bishop must be high priests.

[8] Church judicial formalities with regard to the president of the high priesthood would be modified in August 1835 and January 1838. See below.

[9] Joseph Smith would of course become president of the high priesthood, but not until the following year. The establishment of a presidency (counselors as Latter-day Saints would call them) would wait for several months following that.

[10] The idea that the bishop would be president of the priest's quorum was a later development. At this point, a priest was to be assigned as president of the priest quorum. When the present information was incorporated in D&C 107 in 1835, an "error" remained. Perhaps you can find it.

[11] Unfortunately, the section headings of the current edition of the LDS Doctrine and Covenants perpetuate misunderstanding on these points. (See for example the heading of D&C 84.) The theory that "high priesthood" and "high priest" only evolved into coalescence is not supported by the available records. Conference minutes only a short time after the June ordinations show that those ordained to the "high priesthood" were in fact known as "high priests."

[12] The KRB is titled Revelation Book 2 in the recent JSP volume. I did not use the JSP scans/text, instead I copied it directly from the ms. Any deviations from the JSP text/or original undoubtedly represent my transcription errors. Williams failed to note the complete date of the revelation in his manuscript, leaving out the day. Even without RB1, a bit of textual detective work can narrow down the date in any case.

[13] Observe the reference to presidency of the church. This represents a reading back into the ms a future development. We will return to this matter in a future post.

[14] An eye slip by Williams accounts for the strange regulation of elders presiding over priests. One sees the same sort of errors represented in the Revelation Book 1 text in deleted (stricken) text.

[15] The variation between the two texts here represents an editorial change evident in the Revelations 1 text.

[16] For a comparison between KRB and other texts see here. We will have more to say on that, later.

[17] Recall that the meaning here of "president over the priesthood" is president of the priests. The language does not require the existence of the later policy of a bishop functioning as president of the priests. The nature of "presidencies" in this revelation (a term not actually used) is a solitary president. Somewhat ironically perhaps, this situation would not change with the priests.

[18] Previously, I mentioned that these were not necessarily local quorums in the sense of modern practice. Kirtland and Nauvoo would set a partial precedence so that LDS practice would confine the deacons, teachers, priests and elders as "stake" quorums in Utah. Bishops in the stake would select men and gradually, boys, to fill the ranks of deacons, teachers and priests, with perhaps a number of quorums of each rank, but the quorums would not be effected by "ward" boundaries.

[19] The usage coincides with commonly understood meanings, i.e., the office of a priest. (For example, Webster's 1828 edition, or the Oxford English Dictionary.) Check out David Grua's blog post illustrating the correct early use of "priesthood" here. Also my arguments above which show "priesthood" was a term for one ordained as a "priest" - not an umbrella term for offices. It was the office.

[20] That is, Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood as presently defined in Mormonism. For an excellent example of the confusion created by the adjustment of terminology, see Joseph F. Smith's Gospel Doctrine chapter 9 and the discussion here, here and here. Also see the later discussion on ordination here further remarks on terminology in this article.

[21] Newel K. Whitney collection, BYU.

[22] The revelation is dated March 28, 1835 in the Heber C. Kimball journal, but based on the movements of the participants in the experience, it was probably given near the end of April. As mentioned previously, its character is different than the Nov. 11, 1831 revelation, consisting of a fusion of different developments and revelations, roughly in lecture form, somewhat like the infamous "Lectures on Faith." We come back to this in due course.

[23] Now section 107. Kimball's reference is to what are now verses 1-57 of D&C 107. Since the original of the April revelation is not extant, it is difficult to determine how much of the text of 1-57 was given at that time. The "book of Enoch" material may possibly have been a later addition.

[24]The date of March 28 is traditional, but based on the movements of the apostles and Joseph Smith, it seems likely that the March date is in error. For some analysis of the date, see Steven C. Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants pp. 563-564 n2. My thanks to Jonathan Stapley for pointing out this out to me.

[25] Note the presence of the KRB preamble here. The KRB text is from the 1834 time period. [See JSP intro to Revelation Book 2.]

[26] Oddly, this artifact from 1831 was never edited to reflect the change in the nature of the presidency of the priests.

[27] The Revelation Book 1 text has the same import here.

[28] It is duly noted that the revelation of November 1, 1831 (LDS D&C 68) was also updated with various bits from the April 1835 revelation as well as the updated text of the November 11 revelation.

[29] Interestingly, verse 61 was not modified to reflect that the bishop presides over the priests. The subtle addition in verse 87: of Aaron, could be consistent with the 1831 priesthood architecture by itself, but with verse 88 identifies the change as part of the new order.

[30] The inclusion of the details of organization of the Seventy (from an otherwise unknown vision) at this point fits with the treatment of the other quorums. Observe that the Twelve Apostles get no such treatment. Their internal structure would be defined in a separate revelation (D&C 112). In the meantime, the Twelve had a system of rotating leadership as per Joseph Smith's instruction. They were to be equal in everything. [See for example the Record of the Twelve Apostles p.5.]

[31] See Richard L. Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, 338.

[32] The presidency had a push on to create new stakes however. [See Mary Fielding to her sister, October 7, 1837, CHL.]

[33] Although, surviving counselors were still a loose end. At Brigham's death, the counselors still living, if not taken in by the new presidency and not members of the 12 previously, became "counselors to the Twelve." A rather odd situation. They continued in this office until death or dishonor. The last such conundrums were Alvin R. Dyer and Thorpe Isaacson at the death David O. McKay. The situation was resolved by dropping them into the "assistants to the Twelve." Not precisely parity, but not chopped liver either.

[34] This seems to have been Brigham Young's view. The question of whether Rigdon was still a president of the high priesthood was tied to the March 1833 revelation (D&C 90). His tenure by that measurement may have been over. Brigham Young at least expressed the idea that if Rigdon wanted to be spokesman for Joseph, he would have to go where Joseph was (but see note 3).

[35] While technically the three revelations are canon(?) their relevance seems dated. The 1850s Utah historians mentioned the sustaining of the revelations in the ms history, and that was repeated in the Roberts' edited History of the Church, but by then no one knew where the revelations were. Roberts thought they had been lost in the travails of the church. They were rediscovered by Max Parkin and Dean Jessee in the 1980s. Better tip them in to your D&C!

[36] See for example the journals of John Henry Smith, Lorenzo Snow and others.