Doctrine & Covenants 107 All

From Feast upon the Word (http://feastupontheword.org). Copyright, Feast upon the Word.

Note: this page allows you to see all the commentary pages for Doctrine & Covenants section 107 together. Click on the heading to go to a specific page.

D&C 107:1-5

Doctrine & Covenants > Section 107

Previous (D&C 106:6-8)

Next (D&C 107:6-10)

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 1

Should we regard this division of priesthood as indicative of inherent and eternal differences or divisions? Or do the modifiers (Melchizedek, Aaronic and Levitical--and Patriarchal) serve some purpose other than that of classifying or subdividing priesthood?

Why does the Lord describe "two" priesthoods when using three descriptive modifiers?

How is a Latter-day Saint to understand this priesthood framework in light of the rituals of the ancient and modern temples? How did the Lord intend for Joseph and the Elders to receive it in the nineteenth century? How does that voice to nineteenth century members resonate today?

Given the introductory language of the heading to the Section, when was this early portion of the Section received?

Is the Lord saying that the Levitical priesthood is included in the Aaronic? Or in the combination of Aaronic and Melchizedek? Does the temple answer this question fully?

[edit]

Verse 2

Is addition to providing Latter-day Saints seeking for cursory answers with an explanation, is the Lord attempting to incorporate by reference the typology of Melchizedek's ministry? Not to mention the "King of Righteousness" element...

[edit]

Verse 3

"Holy" raises many implications and potential avenues for intertwining the Priesthood with the temple, the law of sacrifice, and the atonement, to name a few...

What "Order" is being referenced? (Patriarchal? United? ...)

[edit]

Verse 4

Which name was being respected or reverenced? Calling it the Melchizedek Priesthood omits the phrase "after the Order of the Son of God." Was the concern for "Son?" Or "God?" Both of which are frequently used by Latter-day Saints...

How does referring to the Priesthood as "Melchizedek" respect the Supreme Being's name? How does it reverence the name? How does it avoid too frequent repetition (given the other contexts in which both "Son" and "God" are used)?

[edit]

Verse 5

What other authorities exist in the church? Aaronic priesthood? Other priesthoods? Other authority? What other offices?

What is an appendage to the priesthood? What has been identified as such? How do they append the Priesthood? Is the Lord seeking to turn our minds to Paul's teachings on members individually and collectively?

[edit]

Lexical notes

[edit]

Verse 1

Melchizedek. The historical twists and turns surrounding the usage of the name Melchizedek in pre-1835 Mormonism are rather complex. It did not appear at all in the 1833 Book of Commandments, and its place in D&C 68:15, 19 was the consequence of the editing of the revelations for the 1835 publication of the Doctrine and Covenants (that is, subsequent to the reception of section 107). Hence, only a few textual precedents can be cited for the sudden apperance here of Melchizedek, at least one of which was not widely disseminated: the Book of Mormon discussion of Melchizedek in Alma 13, the JST expansion on the Melchizedek story in Gen 14 (closely related, in many ways, to Alma's discourse on Melchizedek), and the reference in D&C 76:57. Of course, there had been discussion since the June 1831 "endowment of power" about both "the high priesthood" and "the order of Melchizedek," but there was not, until this revelation, any talk of "the Melchizedek Priesthood" as such. What all of this would seem to suggest is that any historically responsible interpretation of this passage would have to draw on a hermeneutic of all pre-Melchizedek-Priesthood passages discussing Melchizedek to get a clear sense of how this figure was understood in Mormonism.

[edit]

Verse 3

Order of the Son of God. This, much like the reference to Melchizedek, would have called the Vision to mind in 1835: "They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory; And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son: (D&C 76:56-57).

[edit]

Verse 5

Appendages. The word "appendages" had already been used three years previous in terms of the priesthood: cf. D&C 84:29-30. This earlier usage suggests the profoundly "Old Testament"—if not "Old Testament temple"—understanding of the priesthood that undergirds the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants.

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Of Verses 1-58

As noted in the section heading, "various parts [of this revelation] were received at sundry times, some as early as November 1831." As a matter of fact, it is the later portion of the revelation that was received earlier: the first 58 verses seem without a doubt to have been received on March 28, 1835, while most of the remainder of the section can be found in the Kirtland Revelations Book under the date of November 1831 (some additions were made to the earlier text when it was included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants). The "various parts" would seem to have been united eventually on the somewhat tenuous grounds of their being something of a consistency of theme in the revelations: nominally, "ON PRIESTHOOD," as the heading read in the 1835 D&C. But there is certainly warrant for reading the first 58 verses of this section in isolation from the remainder of the text.

Reading the revelation in this way perhaps diffuses an overly taxonomic reading: rather than being obsessed with hierarchical divisions of the church's labor, the revelation might be read as concerning itself primarily with sorting out the meaning of the ancient priesthood and the way this ancient meaning is to be translated into the modern situation (especially in terms of the Kirtland House of the Lord). The theme of the ancient priesthood runs right through the whole revelation: not only is there an explanation, from the very first verses, about the provenance of the name of the high priesthood, but the revelation comes to its climax in an exploration of the ancient Adam-ondi-Ahman experience and how it bears on the meaning and place of the priesthood. It is apparently in light of these details that this revelation is best interpreted.

Given that overall heading ("ON PRIESTHOOD") the Lord deliberately instructs on the nature of Priesthood power by juxtaposing an assertion of "two priesthoods" with three names "Melchizedek," "Aaronic," and "Levitical" in verse one. This introductory remark to versus 1-58 suggests a desire to transgress the boundaries that a more superficial, hierarchical approach to priesthood might impose on a reader, while recognizing the instructive power of a range of descriptive modifiers for priesthood power. Significantly, the Patriarchal priesthood is not specifically mentioned in this verse, although it may arguably appear obliquely in verse three where the "Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God" adds to the three names of verse one. In approaching this revelation from such a backdrop, the ensuing discussion of "grand heads," "offices," "power and authority," "keys" and "offices" seems to manifest a voice of instruction focusing not on an organizational flow chart, but rather on priesthood genealogy and the relational significance attached to the "priesthoods."

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 6

To what does the Lord refer in calling the divisions "grand heads?" What sort of imagery is being used?

The Lord apparently equates the Aaronic and Levitical Priesthoods. Yet why use different names? Is/should one be preferred over another as Melchizedek is preferred to its prior name referenced in verse 2? Do the modifiers "Aaronic" and "Levitical" describe the same authority, but refer to the differing ways of receiving that authority?

What about priesthood lends itself to this division among a "greater" and "lesser/prepatory"?

What do we learn from priesthood lineage? Is it just about tracing our authority to God? Or does knowing one's priesthood "genealogy" create a new identity to reorient us toward an eternal (kingdom of priests)?

What does the right or privilege of ordination to the priesthood reveal to us about the way that the Lord administers his kingdom?

Textually, the introductory "But" seems to suggest that this passage is meant to appear contradictory to the prior verses, suggesting a line of understanding that initial passage toward reading verses one through five as suggesting a unity of priesthood, whereas verse six acknowledges that despite the unity, subdivisions may also exist.

[edit]

Verse 7

Continuing the theme of subdivisions, the Lord indicates that the office that had initially been the highest office in the Church (with Joseph and Oliver acting as First and Second Elders, respectively), pertains to the subdivision of the Melchizedek priesthood.

Why would the Lord use the word "office" to describe the priesthood? Is the word intended to evoke secular themes of political offices? Can that trajectory direct a careful student toward oaths of office in understanding the "Oath and Covenant" of the priesthood?

Why phrase it "the office of an elder" rather than merely "the office of elder?" Should the phrasing change our understanding or preconceived notions of what an office means?

This verse, in its entirety, seems to underpin the teaching (in D&C 84:29) that elders are an appendage to the Melchizedek priesthood.

[edit]

Verse 8

What context informs our understanding of what "the right of presidency" means?

[edit]

Verse 9

Again, an understanding of the temple seems essential for an informed discussion of "officiating in all the offices." Likewise, the phrase "Presidency of the High Priesthood" raises questions such as "what makes the 'High Priesthood' unique?" "How does it differ from the Aaronic and Melchizedek?"

[edit]

Verse 10

The history of "high priests" seems to parallel the history of this section, with some parts revealed earlier than others and a fragmentary understanding informing prior iterations. How does the office of high priest differ from other offices? (Consider quorum size restrictions, presiding authority, etc., and compare the context of the early church with more contemporary times.)

The list of "elder, priest . . . teacher, deacon, and member seems intended to incorporate by reference Section 20. How do the two sections intersect?

By specifying "priest (of the Levitical order)" does the Lord intend to draw a distinction between Levitical priests and Aaronic priests? Or is the phrase from verse 6 equating the two intended to blur that distinction? Given the theme of a unified priesthood with subdivisions, this parenthetical reference may prove instructive in providing insight to the Lord's teachings on priesthood...

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

Verse 16 What significance can we as readers attribute to the phrase "legal right" in verse 16?

Why would the Lord introduce the concepts of "legal rights" to Priesthood offices and of literal descendants having such rights in the context of the bishopric instead of connecting them to the Patriarchal Priesthood?

Verse 17 In what other circumstances is the verb "officiate" used?

Does verse 17 suggest that the First Presidency (the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood) has the responsibility to call and set apart and ordain all bishops? Or just the Presiding Bishop? And is the phrasing of verse 17 intended to suggest that a literal descendant with a legal right to the office need not be called, set apart nor ordained?

Verse 18 How should we understand holding keys, specifically keys of all spiritual blessings, as constituting "[t]he power and authority" of the Priesthood?

Verse 19 What significance should be given to the allusion to Revelation and the New Testament concept of "mysteries" in connection with a description or elaboration of the privileges, power and authority of the Priesthood?

Verse 20 How do priesthoods hold keys?

What principled distinctions can be drawn from the keys held by the two (greater and lesser) priesthoods? Does the "temporal versus spiritual" distinction break down when actually examining the keys held? If so, is one difference that of temporality: pre- versus post-salvation?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 23

What does it mean to be a witness of the name of Christ?
What does it mean to be a special witness of that name?
Which authorities are special witnesses of Christ?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Beyond characterizing the priesthoods in general

Beginning with verse 21, this revelation radically altered the saints' understanding of the priesthood, systematizing and organizing it so that it might function as a form of government, in addition to its "cultic" role, dwelt upon in the previous verses. Each verse that follows in this revelation is worth very careful consideration: each has had a major impact on the structure of the Church, as well as on the understanding of the priesthood.

The setting is significant. 1835 marks the establishment of church government--an incredibly controversial moment in LDS history now and then ("apostasy" from the Church's organization--as opposed to apostasy from the Church's moral standards or from the contents of a particular revelation--might well be said to center on this very moment of institutionalization, both in Joseph's day and even now). The same year also marks the supersession of the "Book of Commandments" by the "Doctrine and Covenants," the latter text radically altering the former--most obviously in focus and function, but also in actual wording. More still, 1835 is also marked by the acceleration of the work on the Kirtland House of the Lord, with its accompanying emphasis on priesthood. Though this revelation comes early in the year, all of these events form a sort of aura around it.

Perhaps still more significant is the immediate textual setting: what follows not only marks a sort of "departure" from previous revelations on the priesthood, it makes a "departure"--as it were--from the characterization of the priesthood offered in the previous twenty verses! But this very fact ensures that what follows is not, strictly speaking, a departure. Rather, something is being added--by the Lord, it must be remembered--to the priesthood ("added" might be the best word to be used here: the governmental structure of the priesthood does not appear to be "eternal"; cf. D&C 84:29-30, D&C 107:5). Government for the Church, in other words, is a duty the Lord decided to assign to the priesthood (which, in and of itself, was not of governmental function). All these details, it should be hoped, establish the absolute importance of what begins with verse 21.

[edit]

Verse 21

So radical a shift in the role of the priesthood begins with two vital words: "Of necessity...."

[edit]

Verse 22

This verse marks the first instance of the word "quorum" in scripture. Besides its numerous appearances in the following verses, it only shows up elsewhere in D&C 124:62 and 117ff. The institutional importance of a word so seldomly used in scripture suggests that these two revelations are vital for understanding the role and development of the structure of the priesthood in terms of government. (If a broad characterization of section 107 as over and against section 124 is justified: section 107 deals with the introduction and grounding of quorums, while section 124 basically only mentions quorums because the revelation provides names for some specific positions in those quorums. In other words, section 107 is "theoretical," whereas section 124 is "practical." However, it should not be missed how much the "practicality" of section 124 establishes the vitality of more "theoretical" section 107: the institutional importance of the quorums of the priesthood is not a late phenomenon, but something that developed rather quickly--within the lifetime of the prophet Joseph.

It is vital to note that in this passage (as it extends through to verse 37), however, the quorums that are discussed are only the quorums that govern the Church in the broadest sense. The word "quorum," then, appears to have been understood in its more "official" sense. In fact, by 1835, the less official senses of the word were mostly obselete (see the OED entry on "quorum"), and the 1828 Webster's dictionary lists only meanings that bear on official practices (all implying, interestingly, a situation of judgment or justice). The establishment at work in these verses is not, it must be understood, the establishment of the hierarchical quorums of the priesthood. Rather, it is the establishment of a governing system of quorums/councils who have the authority to conduct the business of the entire Church. Verse 32 is perhaps the clearest confirmation of this point: these several quorums (apparently meaning only the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Quorum of the Seventy) "constitute the spiritual authorities of the church." In short, this first instance of "quorums" in scripture is an establishment, not of the quorums of the priesthood, but of the quorums of general authorities in the several and balancing levels of authority. Hence when, later in the revelation, the Lord discusses the "quorums" of the priests, teachers, and deacons, He never uses the term "quorum" at all (see verses 85-90, a series of verses quoted there from an otherwise unpublished revelation of November 1831). (It might be noted further that even in D&C 124, there is never mention of a quorum in the Aaronic Priesthood. Though there is some discussion there of the quorum of the elders, the wording is complex, and this might be only a reference to the quorum of the seventy. The implication seems to be that, at least at first, quorums were only a question of the High Priesthood.)

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Verses 33-35

How do these verses clarify the relations between the three presiding quorums of the Church?
What does it mean to say that the Presidency and the Seventy should build up and regulate all the affairs of the church “first unto the Gentiles and secondly unto the Jews” (verses 33-34)?
What does it mean to us that the gospel is to be proclaimed by the Twelve “first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews”?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

[edit]

Verse 39

Given the understanding of the Twelve in this revelation as a traveling high council, how should the relationship between the Twelve and the "evanglical ministers" or patriarchs be understood?

How should the word "evangelical" be read here? What precendent might there have been for this language? How might it be connected with the phrase "preacher of righteousness" (cf. Moses 6:23; 2 Pet 2:5)?

[edit]

Verse 40

To what extent does the language of the phrase, "the order of this priesthood," imply a kind of split between the patriarchal priesthood being described and the two priesthoods with which the revelation begins? What is implied by the word "order"?

What does it mean to say that this order of the priesthood was confirmed? Does this imply the working of some particular subject who confirmed it? How can it be confirmed to be handed down genealogically?

How ought the language of rights ("rightly belongs") be interpreted here?

How is this revelation connected to the Book of Abraham, the first chapter of which Joseph was translating at about the same time as the reception of this revelation?

Why should there be an emphasis on literal descendants here? What might non-literal descendants mean?

What should be read into the word "chosen," and is there some specific reference implied in the language of the promises that were made?

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verse 39

Here the Lord introduces the office of patriarch, calling those to be ordained to the office, however, "evangelical ministers." Juxtaposed with the lengthy explanation of "this order of the priesthood" that begins with the next verse and continues through verse 57, the title seems odd--and for a number of reasons. The following verses suggest a single line of patriarchs, whereas the commandment in this verse suggests that a number of different patriarchs are to be called in different places. Further, the following verses suggest the most ancient, Old Testament setting for the office, whereas the title "evangelical ministers" has a decisively New Testament flavor (not least because "evangelical" derives from Greek). Finally, though in the following verses it is clear that the patriarchs were part of a more complex covenantal situation (see especially verse 40), the "evangelical ministers" to be called are to be called quite simply "by revelation." In short, the lengthy explanation of the most ancient order of patriarchs seems more to frustrate than to ground this verse (verse 39).

However, that the lengthy explanation turns almost immediately to Adam, in whom "this order was instituted" (verse 41), is quite suggestive: the New Testament flavor of "evangelical ministers" might just imply that in the Second Adam, the order has been made new, has been taken up into the logic of charity, has been opened up so that all might become "literal descendants of the chosen seed" through adoptions as sons (in the Son). In other words, the difference between the office named in verse 39 and the office described at length in verses 40-57 should be felt. The priesthood after the order of the father (the "patriarchal" order), once so perfectly exclusive, has been made "available" through the equally "available" priesthood after the order of the Son (from son to father) that Jesus Christ liberated through atonement. The purpose, then, of the lengthy description of the "original" patriarchal order might be at least twofold: on the one hand, the passage establishes the erstwhile exclusivity of a priesthood order now opened up through the available effects of the atonement; on the other hand, the passage deals at length with the meaning and possibilities of the office that remain, even though the possibility of receiving the order has changed.

The subsequent history of the office of Patriarch may validate this understanding as the lineal descendants of a single family (Joseph Smith, Sr.) served as Presiding Patriarch to the Church until Eldred G. Smith was given emeritus status in 1979. The recent teachings of President Boyd K. Packer indicate that a patriarch acts in a prophetic role (Oct. 2002 General Conference). Although not sustained as such (perhaps non-sustained callings provides food for thought in another vein altogether), stake patriarchs act in a prophetic capacity for their stake,just as the Presiding Patriarch was explicitly sustained as a prophet seer and revelator. The trend toward making the prophetic role available to each stake suggests that the role may extend to the more fundamental units of the church until each household ideally has a patriarch acting in the role of prophet for the family unit. Although speculative, this trajectory validates the textual description of the patriarchal order and the Second Adam opening history back toward the original patriarchal order, thus dividing and uniting history simultaneously.

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

The Genealogy of Adam and the Blessing at Adam-ondi-Ahman

Verses 41-57 lay out a genealogy of Adam that is at once obviously connected to the similar genealogy in Moses 6:8-23; 8:1-11 and at the same time obviously to be read in light of the event of Adam-ondi-Ahman. A bit of reconstruction is presented in the following table:

  Patriarch          Adam's Age at Birth          Adam's Age at Ordination
  Seth                       130                            199
  Enos                       235                            369
  Cainan                     325                            412
  Mahalaleel                 395                            891
  Jared                      460                            660
  Enoch                      622                            647
  Methuselah                 687                            787
  Lamech                     874                            906
  Noah                    deceased                        deceased

While the emphasis in this table is on ordination, it is clear from the text itself that there is a parallel emphasis on blessing. But the story, so far as blessing goes, is hardly so clear: Seth seems to have received his blessing only at Adam-ondi-Ahman, just before Adam's death, while Enoch received his at age sixty-five, which would have thus occurred during Adam's 687th year; moreover, while blessings are mentioned for Mahalaleel and Jared, none are specifically mentioned in relation to any of the other patriarchs (though it may be that the mention of Adam bestowing his last blessing on his posterity at Adam-ondi-Ahman may be meant to include the others).

All of this suggests the necessity of riddling out what is meant here by ordination as opposed to blessing: what is this blessing and why is it given only after ordination? Most likely, verse 42 provides the answer to this question, though this remains to be explored in any significant depth.

[edit]

Verse 42

The promise given to Seth by Adam is interesting for a number of reasons. The context, of course, is that of the passing of the patriarchal order from Adam to Seth, and this verse therefore makes it clear that part of the patriarchal priesthood is a promise that some remnant of the patriarch's seed will be present at the last day (cf. Moses 7:52). This is especially interesting because of the role Seth played in replacing Abel (see on this, especially, Moses 6:2, where Adam explains "God hath appointed me another seed, instead of Abel, whom Cain slew"). The focus on Seth's seed should probably, then, be read in light of Abel's apparent lack of seed, which seems to have been understood quite negatively.

The promise of having a chosen seed that will last until the second coming (and will bless all nations through the priesthood) has been given to many other scriptural figures. For example:

Moses 7:52 says Enoch is promised there will be a remnant of his seed among all nations

Abraham 2:9-11 Abraham, after seeking for the “appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed” (Abr 1:4), is promised that in him and in his seed all the families of the earth will be blessed. References to this Abrahamic Covenant are also found in Gen 12:2-4, Gen 17:5-7, and Gen 22:17-18

Gen 26:3-5 renews the covenant with Isaac

Gen 35:9-12 renews the covenant with Jacob

Gen 49:26 specifically says the blessings of father Jacob will be upon Joseph. This is confirmed in Gen 50:34 JST and 2 Nephi 3:16 (“I will preserve thy seed forever.”)

D&C 110:12 renews the promise of a chosen seed to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry: Elias commits the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, “saying that in us and our seed all generations after us shall be blessed.”

D&C 84:34 We can become part of the promised seed of Abraham when we receive the Melchizedek Priesthood

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis

[edit]

Questions

Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions

[edit]

Lexical notes

Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes

[edit]

Exegesis

[edit]

Verse 58

This verse must be read as returning to the theme of verse 39, continuing to address the duty of the Twelve in organizing the Church generally. However, the Lord here simply takes up an earlier, unpublished revelation in order to expound upon these duties. It should be noted, however, that much of the earlier revelation is revised in this repetition. See the commentary at the beginning of the section.

[edit]