Priesthood Authority

One of the indispensable pillars of the Restoration is priesthood authority. Different branches of the Restoration emphasize priesthood authority to varying degrees, but most of the major Restoration sects do claim to hold the keys of the priesthood. The LDS Church claims that it has exclusive authority to exercise the priesthood, and that its current president is the only man on earth who has the right to exercise all the keys (D&C 132:7). The Community of Christ differs in its grant of priesthood keys in that it now extends the priesthood to women (D&C 156:9-10), and it does not perform the ordinances of the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples. Fundamentalist sects practice various ordinances that neither the LDS Church nor the Community of Christ practice. So, there are different expressions of the priesthood through different lines of transmission, but most branches of the Restoration, as mentioned at the outset, do claim priesthood authority as restored to Joseph Smith, Jr.

What this means to an independent Restorationist will be determined by the nature of the individual's belief. Some will feel that the question of priesthood authority is crucial, and so they will seek to establish their authority by various means. Others will challenge the necessity of authority altogether. As a Pan-Restorationist, I respect the decisions of others regarding the priesthood question. At the same time, I have made my own choice with regard to the priesthood, and I offer it here as one option for what I believe is a valid method of dealing with this issue.

For me, priesthood is important. That is my choice. Joseph Smith repeatedly referred to keys and the importance of having them in order to act effectively in God's name. The problem for an independent Restorationist, however, is that such a person may feel cut off from the traditional sources of authority, and certainly the major Restoration branches will argue that an independent Restorationist is, indeed, without the proper authority possessed by those called and ordained in their respective branch. In my case, since I once belonged to the LDS Church, I can claim that I received the Melchisedec Priesthood, and since I was never ex-communicated, I technically still hold it. What an LDS person might say, however, is that I am not authorized to use that priesthood without the permission of the LDS Church's leadership.

I can agree that I do not have the authority to exercise priesthood keys as a member of the LDS Church. I do not agree, however, that I no longer have the priesthood or that I cannot use the priesthood that I have. I believe there is an argument to be made for my ability to perform ordinances with my current priesthood authority without the permission of the LDS Church, if my actions do not pertain to the LDS Church. Even if I were to be excommunicated--I have not--that excommunication would not, in my opinion, remove my priesthood. It would only remove my authorization to use priesthood within the LDS Church. It is true that the Church performs a "restoration of blessings" on those who are rebaptized and were once endowed, etc., but this practice has no basis in the scriptures.

The LDS Church's claim for exclusive priesthood authority and the exercise of the keys by one man, the prophet, is grounded in D&C 132: 7, the section that also dealt with plural marriage. This was an important place to settle issues of authority, since some men, such as John C. Bennett, had been recruiting spiritual wives without authorization from Joseph Smith. The pertinent passage reads: "I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred." From the LDS perspective, that "one on earth" is the current prophet. But, a closer look shows that this is arguably not really what the revelations says. What it says is that Joseph Smith holds this power in "the last days." What are "the last days"? The time we are living in right now. Joseph Smith still holds the keys, and all who hold priesthood that derives from his authority exercise their priesthood under him, whether they be Russell M. Nelson, or Ramus Stein.

As mentioned in an earlier post, once the Church Joseph founded fragmented, the different groups took their priesthood with them. Those who received "all the keys" could exercise those keys independently, and no one had the right to constrain them, as there was no clear successor to Joseph (nor, I would argue, was it necessary for there to be). Lyman Wight had all the keys. Alpheus Cutler had all the keys. William Marks had all the keys. All who received their second anointings had all the keys of the priesthood, and those who trace their priesthood to one of these men or couples have the partial keys them have through them. Joseph Smith did not envision that all would rely on Brigham Young for their marching orders in the priesthood. Brigham passed on all the keys, but that did not make him the single controller of all of the keys. The person in the last days who does control the keys remains Joseph.

My claim for authority goes back to my ancestor who received his second anointing in Nauvoo in 1846. He received all the keys and his authority was equal to that of any other person who received all of the keys and blessings from the single steward of the last days, Joseph Smith. This ancestor, having "abide[d] in the covenant," "shall pass by the angels, and the gods . . . to [his] exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon [his] head, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." That continuation of the seeds includes his descendants, who come under his authority, as he comes under Joseph Smith, Jr. Does this bypass Brigham Young and all the prophets who followed him? Yes. And that is the choice open to those of us who choose to recognize our anointed ancestors as their priesthood authorities in lieu of other post-assassination sources.

The point of this post is not to contest the priesthood claims of others but to argue that there are legitimate grounds for priesthood claims aside from those one may be most familiar with in one's own branch of the Restoration. For those who are looking for a new source of authority because they are dissatisfied with their current situation for whatever reason, they may take heart that there are other options. Of course, if the concept of priesthood is not attractive to you, then you may disregard this altogether. All that I have written above is aimed at those who do value the concept of priesthood in their own journeys of faith.